Editing Slippery slope (section)

==Slopes, arguments, and fallacies==
Some writers distinguish between a slippery slope {{em|event}} and a slippery slope {{em|argument}}.<ref name="Rizzo & Whitman 2003 p.541">{{cite journal |title=The camel's nose is in the tent: rules, theories, and slippery slopes |journal=UCLA Law Review |date=2003 |last1=Rizzo |first1=Mario |last2=Whitman |first2=Douglas |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=539–592 |url= http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/camelsnose.html |access-date=2017-03-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Kelley |first=David |title=The art of reasoning: an introduction to logic and critical thinking |edition=4th |publisher=W.W. Norton & Company, Inc |location=New York London |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-393-93078-8}}</ref>{{rp|122}} A slippery slope {{em|event}} can be represented by a series of conditional statements, namely:

{{block indent|If {{var|p}} then {{var|q}}; if {{var|q}} then {{var|r}}; if {{var|r}} {{nowrap|then ... {{var|z}}.}} }}

The idea being that through a series of intermediate steps, {{var|p}} will imply {{var|z}}. Some writers point out that strict necessity isn't required and it can still be characterized as a slippery slope if at each stage the next step is plausible.<ref name="Rizzo & Whitman 2003 p.541" /><ref name="Tindale 2007">{{cite book |last=Tindale |first=Christopher |author-link=Christopher Tindale |title=Fallacies and argument appraisal |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge New York |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-521-60306-5}}</ref>{{rp|186}} With strict implication, {{var|p}} will imply {{var|z}}, but if at each step the probability is 90%, for example, then the more steps there are, the less likely it becomes that {{var|p}} will cause {{var|z}}.

A slippery slope {{em|argument}} is typically a negative argument where there is an attempt to discourage someone from taking a course of action because if they do it will lead to some unacceptable conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haigh|first1=Matthew|last2=Wood|first2=Jeffrey S.|last3=Stewart|first3=Andrew J.|date=July 2016|title=Slippery slope arguments imply opposition to change|url= http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/26101/1/SSA_Manuscript.pdf|journal=Memory & Cognition|language=en|volume=44|issue=5|pages=819–836|doi=10.3758/s13421-016-0596-9|issn=0090-502X|pmid=26886759|doi-access=free}}</ref> Some writers point out that an argument with the same structure might be used in a positive way in which someone is encouraged to take the first step because it leads to a desirable conclusion.<ref>{{cite book |last=Groarke |first=Leo |title=Good reasoning matters!: a constructive approach to critical thinking |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Toronto New York |date=1997 |isbn=978-0-19-541225-3 |page=[https://archive.org/details/goodreasoningmat0000groa/page/246 246] |url= https://archive.org/details/goodreasoningmat0000groa/page/246}}</ref>

If someone is {{em|accused}} of using a slippery slope argument then it is being suggested they are guilty of fallacious reasoning, and while they are claiming that {{var|p}} implies {{var|z}}, for whatever reason, this is not the case. In logic and critical thinking textbooks, slippery slopes and slippery slope arguments are normally discussed as a form of {{em|fallacy}}, although there may be an acknowledgement that non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.<ref name="Walton 2015">{{cite journal |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |title=The basic slippery slope argument |journal=Informal Logic |date=2015 |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=273 |ssrn=2655360 |doi=10.22329/il.v35i3.4286 |doi-access=free}}</ref>{{rp|273–311}}