> If the person is actually an incredible authority they will have no trouble making a compelling argument or providing strong evidence.

This is false in many contexts.

For example with Chess, a super GM may tell you your move is bad because they have calculated a ton of possible continuations from your move and you end up in a losing endgame. If you can't follow their calculations and/or don't know enough endgame theory, you won't be able to tell if what they are saying is correct.

Similarly with say cryptography. If you don't understand enough about the field and state of the art. You may not be able to understand how some encryption might be able to be broken.

That is called bias. Again, this matter is simple when objective. People often give into appeals of authority and other fallacies because they lack the critical nature to make original decisions and instead defer to name recognition.

If this were true, then developers would have no problem selling things like unit testing or reduction of technical debt to business folk. Sometimes it's hard to explain something to someone who isn't on your level with a specific skill.

If you lack the ability to craft a persuasive argument then provide strong evidence. To an objective outsider giving into logical fallacies would make your argument weaker, not stronger.