Redraft of "How many logical fallacies are present here?"

>Multi-billion dollar corporation X makes decision Y. Decision Y is made solely in an attempt to bring benefits to group Z.
>Person 1, a member of group Z, offers criticism against decision Y, finding it has no possible merit and only causes problems for the group.
>Person 2 argues that "there must be at least some good reason why decision Y was made". He argues that this is because there might be a benefit to the corporation of the decision going through.
>Person 1 asks for an example of such a benefit, and person 2 states he can only make guesses. These guesses are based off of poor knowledge in the field, and they are proven wrong.
>Person 2 holds on to the belief that decision Y must have been done for some kind of good reason, and that person 1 is not an expert either and that any claims made (by person 1) are therefore equally as invalid as his.

The argument "person 1 is not an expert therefore his arguments are unsound" is ad fidentia 

The argument "person 1 is not an expert and Person 2 is not an expert therefore the claims of Person 1 are equally invalid as his" I think is false equivalence.

The argument 'I can't believe that there is no good reason apart from the corporation's interest for deciding Y, therefore there is some good reason' is argument from incredulity  

The scenario presented includes several logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Here's an analysis highlighting them:

1. **Appeal to Authority (misuse of authority)**: Person 2 may imply that because Corporation X is a multi-billion dollar entity, its decisions inherently have merit or are well-founded. This is a misuse of authority, as the size or financial capability of a corporation does not automatically validate the soundness of its decisions.

2. **Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)**: Person 2 suggests that, because he cannot provide concrete reasons for decision Y but maintains that there must be some good reason for it, the decision has merit. This shifts the burden of proof unjustly and assumes something is true by default because it hasn't been proven false.

3. **Argument from Incredulity**: Person 2 appears to argue that because they cannot personally think of a reason for decision Y being bad, it must therefore have some good reasoning behind it. This type of fallacy dismisses criticism without substantial evidence but relies on dismissal due to a lack of understanding or imagination.

4. **False Equivalence**: By suggesting that person 1's points are equally as invalid as his own due to a lack of expertise from both parties, person 2 creates a false equivalence. This overlooks the fact that the validity or truthfulness of an argument is not necessarily dependent on the individual expertise but rather on the evidence or rationale backing the argument.

5. **Confirmation Bias**: Person 2 appears to cling to their belief despite the lack of evidence and even when their guesses are proven wrong, indicating a bias toward information that supports their preconceived belief that decision Y has merit.

6. **Ad Hominem (circumstantial)**: Although subtle, by claiming neither person is an expert, person 2 may be indirectly attacking the credibility of person 1 rather than focusing solely on the argument(s) about decision Y.

Together, these points demonstrate flawed reasoning in person 2's defense of decision Y, relying on unsupported assumptions, irrelevant comparisons, or logical leaps rather than substantive evidence or logic.

This is nothing more than a discussion between two people. It needs more content to analyze correctly, and it is, therefore, incoherent from a position of logical analysis.