![]() Here are a few examples of precedential slippery slope arguments: With a precedential slippery slope argument, the arguer claims that reacting to one issue in a specific way means they will have to react to other issues that may arise in the future in the same way, regardless of the issues’ similarity or lack thereof. More cars on the road will lead to more collisions, which will make our town a dangerous place to drive or walk. Widening the road will lead to more traffic in town.With less business, the stores will close, which will hurt our local economy. If students are required to wear uniforms to school, they’ll do less shopping at local clothing stores.Here are a few examples of the causal slippery slope fallacy: These are the three types of slippery slope fallacy: Causal slippery slope argumentsĪ causal slippery slope argument claims a minor inciting event will inevitably lead to a major outcome. Each revolves around the core of the slippery slope fallacy: the assumed relationship between two or more events or outcomes. There are a few different types of slippery slope arguments. What are the different types of slippery slope fallacies? Keep in mind that even if these outcomes turn out to be true, they are slippery slope arguments because of the assumed connection between the initial change and its result. Eliminating tolls will keep more money in tourists’ pockets, which they’ll spend on local attractions while they’re here.By spending more time with their families, they’ll be happier and more productive at work. By switching to a four-day workweek, employees will have more time to spend with their families.It’s possible to make a slippery slope argument in favor of something, like in these examples: Although it’s usually used to argue against taking a specific action, a slippery slope argument isn’t, by definition, an argument against something. This extends to legislation-the slippery slope fallacy comes up a lot in discussions about policy changes. īut let’s get back to the slippery slope fallacy, which is often used to argue against making a specific decision. With the appeal to probability, the arguer assumes that because something is possible, it’s guaranteed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |