What's wrong with this argument?

Now that we've reached the stage in the book dealing with actual arguments, I want to play a little game.

The first poster (me) will post an argument, with one small caveat, this argument needs to be fallacious. The next poster to respond will then show exactly what the fallacy is, and correct the mistake if possible. It is then their turn to post the next fallacious argument, and the process repeats. Got it?

We'll start off easy, but feel free to try and formulate more complicated arguments as this game goes on.

Here's my argument:

Some men are fathers
John is a man
Therefore, John is a father.

or more simply
Some A are Z
B is A
Therefore, B is Z

This violates rule 3, The Move from Particular to Universal. Although your premise is true, it does not have a large enough scope to cover the conclusion that you drew.

False Statement:
These two smiley faces are identical.