Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements:
1. If an arguer cites a statement by a recognized expert in support of a conclusion and the statement falls within the expert's range of expertise, then the arguer commits an appeal to unqualified authority.
2. If an arguer cites a statement in support of a conclusion and the statement reflects the strong bias of its author, then the arguer commits an appeal to unqualified authority.
3. In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer accuses the reader or listener of being ignorant.
4. If an attorney for the defense in an American or Canadian criminal trial argues that the prosecution has proved nothing beyond a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant, then the attorney commits an appeal to ignorance.
5. Hasty generalization always proceeds from the particular to the general.
6. The post hoc ergo propter hoc variety of the false cause fallacy presumes that X causes Y merely because X happens before Y.
7. If an argument concludes that X causes Y simply because X and Y occur over the same time interval, then the argument commits the non causa pro causa variety of the false cause fallacy.
8. If the conclusion of an argument depends on the occurrence of a chain reaction of events, and there is good reason to believe that the chain reaction will actually occur, the argument commits a slippery slope fallacy.
9. The fallacy of weak analogy always depends on an alleged similarity between two things or situations.
10. If an argument from analogy depends on a causal or systematic relationship between certain attributes, and there is good reason to believe that this relationship exists, then the argument commits no fallacy.