GASCAP is an awkward acronym.

We were asked to find examples of each GASCAP principle. I am going to be completely honest with you, I have to leave for class in 5 minutes and there is no way that I have time to read a thousand articles just to find examples of each principle. So instead, I am going to give you my own examples. This is how I remember each principle:
Generalization: This principle is a hard one to use as support without statistical evidence. I could not just say that because my dog has fleas, all dogs in my neighborhood has fleas. Now, this is a better claim than saying that all the dogs in the world have fleas because maybe fleas are being passed around in my neighborhood. Either way, Generalization must be supported by running statistical tests in order to become arguable.
Analogy: Like Generalization, I personally find analogy to often be weak because so many lurking variables come into play. However, on a very general scale, this principle can be used to a certain effective extent. Details, though, must be used in order to argue with Analogy effectively. For example, I could say that because Communism oppresses the people of China, so therefore it would also oppress America. Probably true because Chinese and Americans are all human beings, but in order to make this an effective argument I would have to do a lot of research for support because the people of China and the people of America are very different.
Sign: This principle is one of the better ones because it uses common sense, which many readers will understand and believe. It will be true more times than not (depending on what the claim is). I can observe that the HFAC is closed, and assume it is because it is a holiday. I could be wrong, but odds are, I am correct. However, the validity of this principle does depend on the situation. It is much less reliable to assume that the reason Professor Spooner didn't come to class is because she is sick. She could be on vacation, or at a meeting, or dealing with an emergency.
Causality: There are so many lurking variables that this principle, similar to Generalization and Analogy, needs statistical backup. I cannot just claim that a war caused students to do worse in school. Therefore, not only do I need statistical evidence for this principle, I need an X and Y (cause and effect) that are closely related.
Authority: Being an expert on a subject holds a lot of weight, and whether that expert's claim is true or not, many more people will believe a claim made by an experienced, respected, expert. If Dr. Oz tells us that soymilk will give us cancer, many women, especially those in love with Dr. Oz, will believe him. I think the Authority principle is usually pretty reliable, especially when backed up with evidence.
Principle: Because this one involved morality, it can be very debatable. Some claims like this are less debatable than others, like saying cannibalism is wrong is not often going to be countered. However, saying gay marriage is wrong also involves morality for many, but it is much, much more debatable.

After studying all of these principles, I have realized that all of them are very conditional, and they almost all require statistical backup in order to truly be effective. In conclusion, this just goes to show how deep and involved arguments are, and that just claiming things will not convince an audience.