An informal fallacy for part one is appeal to ignorance juror number eight I believe that his name is Davis. It is an appeal to ignorance because the juror stated that there is not enough evidence to determine the boy guilty of killing his father. Most of the claimed to be evidence was just an assumption of the jurors. For part two an informal fallacy that I picked was appeal to unqualified authority. Jury number nine was the one that brought up that the lady was a qualified authority because she needed glasses and without them it was impossible for her to make a trusted declaration. She had claim to see the boy killing his father when she did not have her glasses and that would make her assume that the boy killed his father so that is what
