Whether a non-deductive argument is strong, weak, or fallacious oftentimes if not always depends heavily on who the arguer is, what the context of the argument is, what the state of play of the debate is, and so forth. All of these factors render the identification of good and bad reasoning an at times frustrating enterprise. One common cause of debatable fallacy accusation is a failure to take seriously the careful identification of the arguer, context, and state of play.
Here's an example of an unnecessarily weak argument from Anne Applebaum:
Only two presidents in recent memory have not had vacation homes of their own: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Not coincidentally, it is their vacation choices that have been most heavily criticized. When he was down in Crawford, George W. Bush surrounded himself with like-minded friends and admirers. Away from the cameras, he had a break from constant public surveillance and the Washington rat race. But when Clinton went to Martha's Vineyard to surround himself with likeminded friends and admirers (and to enjoy a break from constant public surveillance and the Washington rat race), he was damned as an elitist. So was Obama, who went there last summer for exactly the same reasons.
Why, exactly, is borrowing or renting someone's house more elitist than owning one? Why is Martha's Vineyard snobbier than Kennebunkport, Hyannis Port or even a private Texas ranch? I don't know, but that's what everyone said, and thus were the Clintons forced to take a pretend "vacation" in Jackson Hole, Wyo. During this "vacation," they had to provide photo opportunities to the press to prove that they really were normal Americans — which, of course, they were not. Once elected, no president is ever a normal American again.
The same fate has now befallen Obama, whose lack of a permanent country residence has also made him inexplicably appear more elitist. Having done the Martha's Vineyard thing last year, and been duly criticized, he has made up for it with visits to Maine, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and North Carolina, all places where "average" Americans like to go.
Anyone can tell that Applebaum is in the critical mode here, she's evaluating someone else's reasons. The question, of course, is: Who argues this? She doesn't say who exactly (save for "the American people").
Applebaum is engaging in the completely useless but time-honored practice of weak-kneed newspaper pundits by not naming the object of her criticism. This leaves it to the reader to fill in for herself. I remember Cokie Roberts inexplicably arguing that Obama ought not to vacation in Hawaii, as it is "exotic." But in fact, if you check your map, it is a state in the United States, and, by coincidence, it is also the place where Obama was born (sorry birthers). Now her point, however absolutely outrageously and unforgiveably dumb, is that Hawaii is "unAmerican" and "exotic" so Obama shouldn't go there, it only highlights the oddity of his name and er, ethnicity. So she's not talking about Roberts–though she ought to be.
I can't think of anyone in particular (in part because I just got back from vacation–three days and renting–myself). So Applebaum would do be a great favor is she just said who thinks such stuff.
But maybe this is Applebaum doesn't in fact know, and this is her general sense of the buzz about Obama's (and Clinton's) vacations. So her crticism is a composite sketch of several distinct possible suspects. If so, I find this particularly unhelpful. There are real people making specifically dumb arguments and raising ridiculous questions about Obama's vacation. We can all learn from their dumbness. Turning an opportunity for dumbness identification into an occasion for hollow-manning is a waste.
When criticism is not specific, like punishment, it's useless. It always leaves open the door for the person with the weak argument to escape.