slippery slope critical thinking

Critically Thinking About the Slippery Slope "Fallacy"

Why is the slippery slope argument perceived as fallacious.

Posted September 13, 2019 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

The Slippery Slope Argument is an argument that concludes that if an action is taken, other negative consequences will follow. For example, “If event X were to occur, then event Y would (eventually) follow; thus, we cannot allow event X to happen.”

In recent times, the Slippery Slope Argument (SSA) has been identified as a commonly encountered form of fallacious reasoning . Though the SSA can be used as a method of persuasion , that doesn't necessarily mean it's fallacious. In fact, SSAs are often solid forms of reasoning. Much of it comes down to the context of the argument. For example, if the propositions that make up the SSA are emotionally loaded (e.g. fear -evoking), then it’s more likely to be fallacious. If it’s unbiased, void of emotion , and makes efforts to assess plausibility, then there’s a good chance that it’s a reasonable conjecture.

So, why is the SSA perceived as fallacious?

The SSA is perceived as fallacious primarily for reasons of relevance and certainty. With respect to relevance, what can make the SSA fallacious is that it may be used to avoid responding to propositions pertinent to the "here and now" of the argument at hand. It adds a component that isn’t necessarily relevant to the initial argument. For example, back in 2015, Ireland held a referendum regarding gay marriage , where citizens voted to legalise civil marriages between individuals of the same sex . One of the common arguments against the "yes vote" for same-sex marriage was that "if Ireland allowed gay marriage, then the next thing would be to allow same-sex couples to adopt." Regardless of how one felt about the "then" proposition, it was actually irrelevant to the propositions of the argument at hand. Whether or not adoption was legalised "down the road" had no bearing on whether or not two people of the same sex should be able to marry.

It is also worth noting that relevance, in this context, is also impacted upon, to a certain extent, by the acceptability or even desirability of the possible outcome. In the example above, it’s implied that the possibility of adoption by same-sex couples is a bad thing, which of course, not everyone believes. In fact, Ireland legalised adoption by same-sex couples soon after. As the SSA is a method of persuasion, it is by nature, biased — almost like a warning against an outcome the individual making the argument does not want to come to fruition. The interesting thing here is that the initial argument was fallacious in that it was presented in a negative light, much like a traditional SSA: “If event x were to occur, then event y would (eventually) follow; thus, we cannot allow event x to happen.” But, at the same time, the SSA was accurate in that "y" did eventually follow "x." Thus, it can be argued that the status of this argument as fallacious might just boil down to what individuals perceive as an acceptable outcome. However, the acceptability or desirability of the outcome shouldn’t really matter, given that what someone perceives doesn’t affect the likelihood of the conditions within the SSA from happening.

With respect to likelihood and certainty, the SSA is also often perceived as fallacious because it’s not possible for us to see into the future and guarantee that the subsequent event will occur. On the other hand, it’s also difficult to reject the claim for the same reason! But neither point necessarily makes this "if, then" conditional proposition unreasonable to suggest — it just requires assessment of plausibility. For example, as discussed previously, after critically thinking about patterns in human history, it may be possible to assess the plausibility of an event occurring in light of some previous event. If it’s plausible, then this SSA isn’t illogical.

To understand what's meant here by plausibility, it’s important to also understand that the foundation of the SSA is that it’s a conditional proposition, such as "if x, then y." Conditional propositions are commonplace in formal logic and are often logically sound. In some cases, arguments have multiple conditional claims which extend the "slope" — for example, "if x, then y" and "if y, then z." It might even go longer; for example, "if a, then b" and "if b, then c" and "if c, then d." However, in this context, the SSA is only fallacious if the propositions involved are false or implausible.

With that, the degree of plausibility, or even likelihood, of "x" leading to "z" or "a" leading to "d" cannot be assumed without careful consideration of the rest of the connecting conditional claims. If it’s plausible that "a" will eventually lead to "c," that implies that there is a good chance that both "a" will lead to "b" and that "b" will lead to "c." This is a reasonable way of considering conditional arguments, but it’s not entirely accurate because there is an underlying assumption that one will lead to the next and so on. The level of certainty requires thought.

When we consider such arguments in terms of likelihood, we see how we might be prone to overestimating the plausibility of the "event" occurring. For example, imagine that "a" leading to "b" is 90% likely, as are both "b" leading to "c" and "c" leading to "d." Many would be confident in the prospect that "a" would lead to "d" and may even give it a 90% chance of happening. But, this would be incorrect. What’s happening here is that the average across conditional propositions is being used. The reality is that the strength of the chain is weaker than the strength of each condition because it adds extra "if"s which affect the overall probability — thus, making "a" leading to "d" a 73% likelihood. Though 73% may be viewed as plausible, it’s still quite a bit less than 90%, so we need to be careful in our evaluation.

In conclusion, just because an SSA is used doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or fallacious. Sure, it’s commonly used as a method of persuasion; so, it requires evaluation. But, like other forms of argument, if it’s presented in a context that accounts for all available evidence, "for" and "against," so as to present the whole story, then it’s reasonable to consider its plausibility. On the other hand, SSAs can be wrong, unlikely, or emotionally loaded; but, so can other types of arguments. In reality, the only illogical course of action would be to dismiss an SSA without properly evaluating it first. As always, I’m very interested in hearing from any readers who may have any insight or suggestions, particularly perspectives from the field of argumentation!

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Wireless Philosophy

Course: wireless philosophy   >   unit 1.

• Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies
• Formal and Informal Fallacies
• Fallacies: Fallacy of Composition
• Fallacies: Fallacy of Division
• Division and Composition
• Fallacies: Introduction to Ad Hominem
• Fallacies: Ad Hominem
• Ad Hominem, Part 1
• Ad Hominem, Part 2
• Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent
• Fallacies: Denying the Antecedent
• Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent
• Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
• Fallacies: Appeal to the People
• Fallacies: Begging the Question
• Begging the Question
• Fallacies: Equivocation
• Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy

Fallacies: Slippery Slope

• Fallacies: Red Herring

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Video transcript

Slippery Slope

In Lesson 12, we discussed conditionals, which are one of the ways in which a deductive argument may be framed. Conditionals use an "if-then" premise to lead to a conclusion (example: if you do not pay your electric bill, then your power will be turned off). When a conditional contains a logical fallacy, it is called a slippery slope.

In this type of fallacy, it is asserted that one event will or might happen, and then, inevitably, another, more serious or drastic, event will occur. The slippery slope does not explain how the first event leads to the other. Often, it leaves out a number of steps between the two events, without saying why they will simply be bypassed. The argument takes the following form:

1. Event A has/will/might occur.

2. Therefore, event B will inevitably occur.

The slippery slope argument makes an opponent's argument seem more extreme. It says that event A will eventually lead to an extreme, unwanted event B. The argument infers that the only way to avoid event B is to not do event A, or even anything at all. The gun lobby uses the slippery slope all the time to argue against any type of gun control. They say that any small measure, such as registration or waiting periods to purchase firearms, will lead to drastic control, or even confiscation of their weapons. Here is another example:

"We have to stop the tuition increase! Today, it's $5,000; tomorrow, they will be charging $40,000 a semester!"

Note that there are many possible steps between event A, the tuition increase, and event B, the charging of $40,000 a semester. An increase could occur every year for ten years or more before there was a jump from five to forty thousand dollars. In addition, tuition might never reach $40,000. This is a slippery slope because one tuition hike to $5,000 does not inevitably lead to a charge of $40,000.

Other examples are listed below. Keep in mind the possible intermediate steps between event A and event B in each, and the likelihood, or unlikelihood, that B will ever be a result of A.

■ Don't let him help you with that. The next thing you know, he will be running your life .

■ You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they will walk all over you.

■ This week, you want to stay out past your curfew. If I let you stay out, next week you'll be gone all night!

Continue reading here: Lesson 9 Persuasion Techniques

Was this article helpful?

Related Posts

• Making Decisions Under Stress
• Venn Diagram - Critical Thinking
• Effective Persuasion Techniques
• Avoid Making Assumptions - Critical Thinking
• Chicken and Egg Confusing Cause and Effect
• Pretest - Critical Thinking

Slippery Slope Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition)

You're here to understand the slippery slope fallacy, and you've come to the right place. This powerful concept can affect your decision-making, your debates, and even your understanding of the world.

A Slippery Slope Fallacy occurs when an argument suggests that a single action or event will lead to a series of other events without providing substantial evidence to support that claim.

We'll explain this subject and provide real-world examples. You'll learn about the psychology that makes these arguments so tempting to believe. By the end, you'll be more discerning and less likely to slide down that proverbial slope.

What is a Slippery Slope Fallacy?

Imagine you're on top of a hill covered in snow. You make a tiny snowball and give it a gentle push downhill. As it rolls, it picks up more snow and becomes a giant snowball, crashing into a house at the bottom.

The slippery slope fallacy is like saying that a small snowball you made must lead to a disaster without any evidence that it actually will. It assumes that one event sets off an unstoppable chain of events, ending in something really bad—or sometimes really good—but doesn't back it up with proof.

In the realm of arguments and debates, a slippery slope is a rhetorical device , which is a tool that debaters use to convince people. It often appears in discussions about law changes, ethics, and social norms.

It's also a logical fallacy , which is are logical error, usually in arguments, that people make, which leads to inconsistent reasoning.

Let's say someone argues that legalizing a minor form of gambling will inevitably lead to rampant addiction and crime. That's a slippery slope fallacy unless they prove that one action will lead to another.

The key takeaway is straightforward: not all initial actions lead to drastic outcomes. Just because an argument might sound compelling doesn't mean it's universally accurate.

When you hear someone use a slippery slope argument, ask for evidence.

Other Names for Slippery Slope Fallacy

• Domino Fallacy
• Thin Edge of the Wedge
• The Camel's Nose

Similar Logical Fallacies

• Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
• Red Herring Fallacy - Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.
• False Analogy - Comparisons between two things that seem similar but are very different.
• Ad Hominem Attacks - Attacking the person instead of their argument.
• Circular Reasoning - Using the conclusion as the premise, arguing in a circle.

The term "slippery slope" has been around for quite some time, although it's hard to pinpoint its exact origin. It gained prominence in legal and ethical debates, especially those dealing with changes that could have far-reaching consequences.

Some sources trace its modern usage back to the early 20th century. It's an enduring term because it paints a vivid mental picture: once you start sliding down a slope, it's hard to stop. But remember, it's a fallacy if it lacks evidence to support its claims.

29 Examples of Slippery Slope Arguments

1) internet privacy.

"If we allow the government to access our data for national security, soon they'll be spying on our conversations and activities."

This argument assumes that allowing limited government access for a specific reason will automatically spiral into violating personal privacy. Without substantial evidence that this will occur, the argument leans on a slippery slope fallacy.

2) Soft Drinks and Health

"If you start drinking one soda a day, you'll become addicted and eventually suffer from obesity and diabetes."

Here, the argument goes from a single daily soda to extreme health consequences without providing steps or evidence in between. It's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.

3) Video Games and Violence

"Playing violent video games will desensitize you to violence, and you'll eventually become aggressive in real life."

This argument suggests that an initial action—playing a violent video game—will lead to extreme real-world consequences. Yet, it doesn't offer concrete evidence to connect these two points, making it a slippery slope fallacy.

4) Legalizing Marijuana

"If we legalize marijuana, then people will start pushing for the legalization of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin."

This argument assumes that legalizing one substance will automatically lead to the push for legalizing all substances, a slippery slope without concrete evidence.

5) Curfew Laws

"If we lift the teenage curfew, our town will become a haven for crime and lawlessness."

This leaps, lifting a single restriction to an extreme scenario of a crime-ridden town without any evidence to support such a claim.

6) Free Speech

"If we allow hate speech under the banner of free speech, it will inevitably lead to the spread of hate crimes and violence."

While the subject is sensitive, claiming that allowing one form of speech will result in violent actions is a slippery slope unless substantial evidence is provided.

7) Employee Benefits

"If we allow employees to work from home, productivity will plummet, and the company will go bankrupt."

This argument jumps from one policy change to a worst-case scenario without offering data or logic to link the two.

8) Plastic Surgery

"If you get one cosmetic procedure, you'll become addicted and end up ruining your natural beauty."

This assumes that one elective procedure will lead to an endless cycle of surgeries without any concrete evidence to prove it.

9) Gun Control

"If we enact even modest gun control measures, it's only a matter of time before all guns are banned."

This argument is a slippery slope, suggesting that a small regulation change will lead to a complete ban without evidence to back it up.

10) Relationships

"If you break up with me, you'll never find someone who treats you as well as I do."

This assumes that one decision—to break up—will lead to a lifetime of unhappiness, a slippery slope without basis.

11) Educational Policies

"If we remove one book from the school library due to inappropriate content, we'll end up censoring all literature that anyone finds offensive."

This argument jumps from a single action to a worst-case scenario without logical steps in between, making it a slippery slope fallacy.

12) Healthcare

"If we implement universal healthcare, the quality of care will decline, and we'll have to ration essential medical supplies."

This claim jumps from implementing a policy to extreme negative outcomes without offering evidence to connect these points.

13) Junk Food Taxes

"If the government starts taxing junk food, what's stopping them from taxing all the food we enjoy until we're only allowed to eat what they deem healthy?"

This argument assumes that one tax change will lead to a cascade of other taxes, affecting personal freedoms—another of conceptual slippery slope arguments without proper evidence.

14) Social Media Censorship

"If we allow social media platforms to remove hate speech, they'll start censoring any opinions they don't agree with."

This argument assumes that taking one moderation action will lead to broad censorship, a slippery slope without concrete evidence.

15) Veganism

"If you become a vegan, you'll eventually become so picky that you won't eat anything but raw vegetables."

Here, the argument makes a huge leap from choosing a vegan lifestyle to eating only raw vegetables without substantiated evidence.

16) Facial Recognition Technology

"If we allow facial recognition technology for security, it'll only be a matter of time before the government uses it to surveil us constantly."

This argument takes the introduction of a technology and jumps to an extreme invasion of privacy without showing the logical steps in between.

17) School Uniforms

"If we implement school uniforms today, tomorrow schools will dictate every aspect of student appearance and behavior."

This example claims that one dress code policy will lead to extreme authoritarian control without supporting evidence.

18) Environmental Policies

"If we ban plastic straws today, we'll be banning all forms of plastic and returning to the Stone Age tomorrow."

Here, the argument leaps from a simple environmental policy to an extreme rollback of modern conveniences without any evidence.

19) Early Relationships

"If you date him/her now, you're setting yourself up for a life of poor relationship choices."

This assumes that one relationship decision will dictate all future relationship decisions, a classic slippery slope fallacy.

20) Body Tattoos

"If you get a small tattoo, you'll end up with your entire body covered in tattoos and regret it later."

This example claims that a single, small action will lead to an extreme outcome without providing any evidence.

21) Digital Payments

"If we move to a cashless society, the government will control every aspect of our financial life."

This argument goes from a change in payment methods to extreme government control without showing logical progression or evidence.

22) School Testing

"If we remove standardized tests, the education system will crumble, and no student will be properly evaluated ever again."

This claim moves from a single policy change to the collapse of an entire system without substantiated evidence, making it a slippery slope fallacy.

23) Automation and Jobs

"If we allow more automation in factories, everyone will lose their jobs, and we'll have mass unemployment."

Here, the argument jumps from technological advancement to societal collapse without providing a concrete link between the two.

24) Online Education

"If we start offering more online classes, soon enough, traditional classrooms will become obsolete, and of course, the quality of education will decline."

This argument leaps from the introduction of online classes to the disappearance of traditional learning spaces and an overall decline in educational quality without solid evidence to support it.

25) Public Transportation

"If the city builds one more bike lane, cars will eventually be banned from the city center altogether."

Here, the argument suggests that adding a single bike lane will lead to a complete ban on cars in the city center without providing proof for such a drastic outcome.

26) Animal Rights

"If you adopt a shelter dog, you'll want to turn your home into an animal sanctuary and get overwhelmed."

This example takes a simple, kind act and turns it into an unsustainable, overwhelming lifestyle change without showing logical steps or evidence.

27) Streaming Services

"If you start subscribing to one streaming service, you'll waste all your money on subscriptions and neglect other responsibilities."

This assumes that subscribing to a single service will lead to financial recklessness and irresponsibility, another slippery slope without supporting facts.

28) Renewable Energy

"If we start relying on solar energy, it's a matter of time before other industries collapse and we face an economic downturn."

The argument jumps from adopting renewable energy to the downfall of other industries and an economic crisis without substantial evidence.

29) Exercise Routine

"If you skip your workout today, you'll lose all motivation and never achieve your fitness goals."

This example takes a single instance of skipping a workout and extends it to a lifetime of fitness failure without concrete proof.

The Psychological Mechanisms Behind It

The slippery slope fallacy often works because it taps into our emotional fears or desires.

Essentially, it plays on the human tendency to imagine worst-case (or best-case) scenarios. It's almost like a mental shortcut, helping us quickly assess a situation without going into the details of logical reasoning.

The appeal to emotion can make these arguments seem strong, even when they lack concrete evidence.

This logical fallacy also relies on another psychological concept called "cognitive ease." Your brain likes things that are easy to process.

When you hear a simple chain of events—"If A happens, then Z will surely happen"—it might feel intuitively right. But remember, feeling right doesn't make it logically right. Your brain may be taking the easy way out, but that can lead you down a slippery path of flawed reasoning.

The Impact of It

Slippery slope fallacies can have real-world consequences.

In politics, for example, they may be used to sway public opinion against a proposed law by predicting catastrophic outcomes.

In personal relationships, they can create unnecessary fear or conflict. Imagine being told that taking a break in a relationship will inevitably lead to a breakup; the emotional weight of such a statement can cause unnecessary strain.

Moreover, when decision-makers fall for this fallacy, they may forego beneficial opportunities. For instance, not adopting new technology for fear of potential, unproven drawbacks can result in missed advancements.

In these ways, the impact of the conceptual slippery slope fallacy is not just theoretical—it can lead to impractical or even damaging decisions.

How to Identify and Counter the Slippery Slope Fallacy

Spotting a slippery slope fallacy involves critical thinking . Listen for an argument that takes you from Point A to Point Z with little or no evidence. If you notice this, ask for the evidence that supports each leap.

Essentially, you're asking for the logical "steps" that take you down this so-called "slope." If these can't be provided, you've identified a causal slippery slope fallacy.

To counter it, request concrete evidence or data that links the initial action to the predicted outcome. Often, the person making the claim will be unable to provide it.

You can also turn the tables by asking how the proposed slippery slope differs from a scenario where no disastrous chain of events occurs. This forces the person to think critically about their argument, potentially revealing its weaknesses.

Remember, not all slippery slopes assume a negative outcome. It might be that such arguments are more convincing because they create positive emotions. The point of them is for the decision maker to shift their attention from the debate to their emotions. Please don't fall for it!

Related posts:

• Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)
• Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
• Genetic Fallacy (28 Examples + Definition)
• Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
• Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (29 Examples + Description)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

7 Slippery Slope Fallacy Examples (And How to Counter Them)

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

Say you’re debating a friend over the topic of marijuana legalization and they say this:

“If we legalize recreational marijuana, then marijuana will become normalized in public life. If marijuana is normalized, that will make it more likely that children and other impressionable people will partake. Before you know it, everyone will be doing drugs! Therefore, we should not legalize recreational marijuana.”

Now, your spidey senses might be tingling a bit. You can definitely tell something is wrong with the above argument, but you can’t quite put your finger on exactly what.

This argument is an example of a slippery slope fallacy . A slippery slope fallacy is a fallacious pattern of reasoning that claims that allowing some small event now will eventually culminate in a significant and (usually) negative final effect later. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious when the claimed links between the events are unlikely or exaggerated .

The above argument is a slippery slope fallacy because it posits a sequence of events that are weakly connected. In response, you could argue that it’s unlikely legalizing marijuana will make children more likely to use it. After all, there are lots of recreational substances, such as alcohol, that are legal and controlled to stay out of the hands of children and other vulnerable people.

You could also argue that legalizing some substance won’t necessarily make it more popular in the public consciousness. The main point is that slippery slope-style arguments can be evaluated based on the strength of the claimed links between events. If those links are weak, then the argument is likely committing a slippery slope fallacy.

Today, we are going to talk about 7 slippery slope fallacy examples and how to avoid them in your everyday life.

Table of Contents

What is a Slippery Slope Fallacy?

Slippery slope-slope style arguments can are a kind of hypothetical reasoning and are made up of conditional claims:

• If A then B
• If B then C
• If Y then Z

Where A is the first event, Z is the final event, and B-Y are the intermediate links in the chain.

This argument pattern is fallacious when the claimed links between the events in the chain are weak or non-existent. In other words, the argument pattern fails if there is little reason to think that A will lead to B, or that B will lead C, and so on.

To learn more about fallacious arguments, here's an in-depth article about logical fallacies and why it's important to recognize them .

Types of Slippery Slope Arguments

Philosophers have identified 3 major kinds of slippery slope fallacies:

• Causal slippery slope: The idea that a small insignificant event will cause a major significant even down the road.
• Conceptual slippery slope: Claiming there is no meaningful difference between two things if you can go from one to the other via a step of small steps
• Precedential slippery slope: The idea that treating one small thing a certain way will lead to treating a significant thing the same way

It can be difficult to tell the types apart in normal conversation and many commonly encountered slippery slope arguments involve aspects of all three types . Despite their differences, all 3 types of slippery slope arguments share 3 core features:

• A start that seems mild
• An endpoint that is significant or extreme
• A series of small steps to connect one to the other

7 Slippery Slope Examples and Counterarguments

Here are some examples of slippery slope arguments in the wild. You’ll have likely heard some forms of at least one or two arguments below.

Argument : “We cannot allow more taxation, as any taxation incentivizes more taxation, which will inevitably lead to the loss of all private property and tyranny.”

Counterargument : This causal/precedential slippery slope pattern is commonly seen in arguments about whether we should increase or decrease taxes. This argument can be considered fallacious as there is little reason to think that raising taxes in some areas will cause a spiraling descent into tyranny and communism. After all, taxes and forms of private property have coexisted in pretty much every single society throughout history.

You could also argue that merely raising taxes on some class of individuals does not mean raising taxes on everyone , which is what the fallacious argument claims. The argument is even more unconvincing when you realize that, according to its own logic, we shouldn’t have any taxes whatsoever . That claim is just as unlikely as the claim that we should tax away everyone’s stuff.

2. Marriage

Argument : “Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. If we change the definition to include gay couples then we will soon change it again to cover other things. The next thing you know, we will have people wanting to marry animals and inanimate objects. Therefore, we should not change the definition of marriage.”

Counterargument : This argument combines aspects of a conceptual and precedential slippery slope fallacy. It claims that changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples is no different than changing the definition to allow people to marry animals and objects. The argument leaves out the possibility that there is a reasonable definition that explains why animals and inanimate objects can be excluded from the category of marriage.

For instance, a prerequisite of marriage is that it must take place between two consenting adults. Animals and objects are neither of those things so they can be excluded.

3. Catastrophizing Thoughts

Argument : “If I fail this test, then I will flunk the class. If I flunk the class, I will flunk out of school entirely. If I flunk out entirely then my entire future is ruined and I will never be able to get a good job and provide for a family!”

Counterargument: Pretty much everyone is guilty of “ catastrophizing ” like this sometimes. We tell ourselves that one bad thing will inevitably lead to another and another until our worst nightmares come true.

The key to shaking this kind of causal slippery slope is realizing that it's fallacious! One bad event does not necessarily mean more bad events will happen. And a single bad event is unlikely to lead directly to disastrous consequences.

It may not be true that the future will be like the past; the future could be different. Overcoming these kinds of limiting beliefs is important to navigate the world effectively.

4. Politics

Slippery slope arguments are all over the place in political discussions. Here is one you may have heard recently in the news:

Argument : “If we allow the government to remove Confederate statues from public places, then it’s a short road to the government trying to erase and censor history. Next thing you know, all our history textbooks will be altered to remove the truth. You don’t want the government telling you what to think is true, do you?”

Counterargument : Again, this argument assumes that a small event will have catastrophic consequences down the road. This argument shares features of a causal and precedential slippery slope. Removing statues meant to venerate Confederate generals is not erasing history and is unlikely to cause massive government censorship of history.

Historical facts about the Confederacy are still kept track of in libraries and museums and there is no movement to censor those things. The simple act of removing some historical artifact from a public place does not in itself count as censorship.

5. Healthcare

Argument: “ If we provide free healthcare then where does it stop? Soon people will be asking for free cars, free cell phones, free food, and free everything. The more people get free stuff, the less they will work which will eventually lead to economic ruin.”

Counterargument: This argument has features of a causal and precedential slippery slope. It can be challenged because there is little empirical evidence to support its conclusions.

There are several modern countries with universal healthcare that have healthy economies and don’t have a problem of people wanting too much free stuff. There is actually evidence that universal health care schemes are good for the economy and that welfare programs do not discourage people from looking for work .

6. Euthanasia

Argument : “We should not allow doctors to end the life of terminally ill patients because if we do, it’s not far off from letting doctors euthanize healthy people or people that they believe to be genetically inferior. That's what the Nazis did after all!”

Counterargument: This argument combines aspects of a conceptual, precedential, and causal slippery slope. By using gradated language, it obscures the fact that there is a clear conceptual distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia .

Voluntary euthanasia is carried out under the express wishes of the patient and occurs with their consent. Involuntary euthanasia does not involve the consent of the patient. Involuntary euthanasia is murder and murder is already illegal . Allowing voluntary euthanasia won’t change that.

7. Rules and Exceptions

Argument: “I cannot make an exception for you, or else I would have to make an exception for others in the class. Eventually, I would have to make exceptions for everyone else and then the rules would be utterly meaningless!”

Counterargument: This argument is a precedential slippery slope. It’s fallacious because it treats the issue as if everyone always has to be granted an exception equally. Sometimes exceptions to rules are reasonable and will not set a precedent for disassembling the rules.

Various laws have exceptions but the laws still manage to function. What matters is the reason for granting the exception. In extenuating circumstances, it may be correct to give an exception to some established rules.

Why Are Slippery Slopes Fallacies?

Slippery slope-style arguments are often fallacious, but the reason why they are fallacious differs depending on the kind of slippery slope argument it is.

For Causal Slopes

Causal slippery slopes can be fallacious when there is little evidence to support the idea that one event will cause another and so on. Fallacious causal slippery slope arguments rely on exaggerating the strength or severity of causal connections between events.

Even if some hypothetical sequence of events is possible , the argument is fallacious if it is unlikely that the sequence of events will actually happen. If there is little evidence that the presented causal chain is likely, then the argument is weak.

For Conceptual Slopes

Conceptual slippery slope arguments can be fallacious as they deny that 2 categories of things are different because you can transition from one to the other through a series of small steps. Conceptual slippery slope fallacies ignore the possibility that we can differentiate between things even if they exist on a continuum or spectrum.

A good counterexample to this type of thinking is the category “bald.” There is no definite number of hairs that separates someone from being bald or not bald, but we can recognize clear instances of the two categories. Mr. Clean is bald and Cousin It is not bald. Conceptual slippery slopes share features in common with the continuum fallacy (sometimes called a Sorites fallacy).

For Precedential Slopes

Precedential slippery slope arguments are based on saying that some current behavior or event will set a precedent for future behavior or events. The idea is that if we treat a seemingly small thing a certain way now, we will have to treat a significant thing the same way in the future.

Precedential slippery slope arguments can be fallacious as they ignore the possibility that we can determine when precedent should or should not be followed . They also assume that the beginning and ending positions of the argument are similar enough that precedent would apply between them.

Precedential slippery slopes are usually combined with all-or-nothing thinking and often start by assuming a false dichotomy between two options. Precedential-style slope arguments might be valid in specific contexts (e.g. legal sphere) where precedent plays an integral role in making decisions.

Valid Slippery Slope Arguments

Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious. Sometimes, a slippery slope argument can be an instance of valid reasoning. Consider the following argument:

“We can’t let people throw their trash on the sidewalk because, over time, that could build up to a big public nuisance and health hazard.”

This argument has a slippery slope structure. It claims that allowing some relatively small event (letting people litter) will lead to some larger negative effects (public annoyance and health issues). In this case, the argument is persuasive as there is good reason to believe that things will actually unfold in that manner .

Whether or not a slippery slope-style argument is reasonable depends on a number of factors including the type of slippery slope argument it is and the context of the argument. In some cases, it might not be clear if the argument is fallacious or not.

How to Respond to Slippery Slope Arguments

The exact way to respond to a slippery slope argument depends on the kind of slippery slope it is and what the specifics of the argument are. Here are a few general approaches to keep in mind:

Ask your opponent for justification

If your opponent did not provide any evidence to support their suggested slope, then ask them to justify their view. The burden of proof is on them to make their case.

Highlight missing parts of the chain

Point out how the argument leaves out a lot of events between the first and last points. Pointing out these missing pieces can lessen the bite of the argument.

Emphasize the distance between the start and end

Pointing out a significant difference between the start point and endpoint might give a reason to think it’s justified to treat them in two different ways. Pointing out the distance between the two also makes it easier to see how it's unlikely one will lead to the other.

Stop the slope in its tracks

Try to find a reason that we can stop the slope in the transition period. There might be a good reason to think the slope will not proceed all the way if there is a principled stopping point. Show how you can prevent the initial event from leading to the final event.

Call out underlying premises

Sometimes a slippery slope is based on false assumptions. Addressing these incorrect assumptions directly might be more helpful than explaining the problem with the slope.

Provide a counterexample

If possible, present a counterexample to show your opponent’s logic is flawed. One way to do this might be to point out how slippery slope arguments can often be applied in both directions of an issue. For example, if your opponent argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to obscene behavior, you could just as easily claim that restricting gay marriage could lead to restrictions on other kinds of marriage, eventually banning it altogether.

Learn More About Logical Fallacies

• 5 Appeal to Nature Fallacy Examples in Media and Life
• 6 Outcome Bias Examples That Can Negatively Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Self-Serving Bias Examples You See Throughout Life
• 7 Omission Bias Examples That Negatively Impact Your Life
• 6 Authority Bias Examples That Might Impact Your Decisions
• 5 Burden of Proof Fallacy Examples
• 5 Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Examples in Life
• 5 Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy Examples
• 7 False Cause Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Common Sense Logical Fallacy Examples
• 5 Post Hoc Fallacy Examples (and How to Respond to This Argument)
• Gambler’s Fallacy: 5 Examples and How to Avoid It
• 5 Appeal to Anger Fallacy Examples Throughout Life
• 7 Halo Effect Bias Examples in Your Daily Life
• 7 Poisoning the Well Examples Throughout Your Life
• 7 Survivorship Bias Examples You See in the Real World
• 7 Dunning Kruger Effect Examples in Your Life
• 7 Either Or (“False Dilemma”) Fallacy Examples in Real Life
• 5 Cui Bono Fallacy Examples to Find Out “Who Will Benefit”
• 6 Anchoring Bias Examples That Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Virtue Signaling Examples in Everyday Life
• 7 Cherry Picking Fallacy Examples for When People Ignore Evidence
• 9 Circular Reasoning Examples (or “Begging the Question”) in Everyday Life
• 9 Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy Examples
• 9 Appeal to Pity Fallacy (“Ad Misericordiam”) Examples in Everyday Life
• 9 Loaded Question Fallacy Examples in Life and Media
• 9 Confirmation Bias Fallacy Examples In Everyday Life
• 9 Bandwagon Fallacy Examples to Prevent Poor Decisions
• 5 Red Herring Fallacy Examples to Fight Irrelevant Information
• 9 Middle Ground Fallacy Examples to Spot During an Argument
• 5 False Equivalence Examples to Know Before Your Next Argument
• 7 Hasty Generalization Fallacy Examples & How to Respond to Them
• 6 Straw Man Fallacy Examples & How You Can Respond
• 6 False Dichotomy Examples & How to Counter Them

Final Thoughts on Slippery Slope Fallacies

Slippery slope fallacies are fairly common in everyday life and often go undetected. One explanation for our tendency to think in this fallacious manner has to do with how our brains are wired for making predictions . Humans have a natural knack for visualizing lines of possibilities, but this talent can get in the way of our rational faculties. We jump from inference to inference and might not slow down to ask if we are justified in making those inferences.

Fallacious thinking can have serious negative consequences, so educating your critical thinking faculties to recognize fallacies like slippery slopes is an invaluable skill. Like any muscle, the brain needs practice to get stronger. Identifying instances of slippery slope argument in everyday life will help you make more effective decisions, promote self-awareness , and liberate you from constrained thinking habits.

Also, if you're interested in learning about other types of fallacies, here's our in-depth look at the straw man fallacy .

Finally, if you want a simple process to counter the logical fallacies and cognitive biases you encounter in life, then follow this 7-step process to develop the critical thinking skills habit .

Alex Bolano is a freelance writer based out of St. Louis. He holds his MA in Philosophy and writes on topics relating to science, culture, politics, finance, and education. He enjoys playing video games and researching the latest trends in science and technology.

Unit 1: What Is Philosophy?

LOGOS: Critical Thinking, Arguments, and Fallacies

Heather Wilburn, Ph.D

Critical Thinking:

With respect to critical thinking, it seems that everyone uses this phrase. Yet, there is a fear that this is becoming a buzz-word (i.e. a word or phrase you use because it’s popular or enticing in some way). Ultimately, this means that we may be using the phrase without a clear sense of what we even mean by it. So, here we are going to think about what this phrase might mean and look at some examples. As a former colleague of mine, Henry Imler, explains:

By critical thinking, we refer to thinking that is recursive in nature. Any time we encounter new information or new ideas, we double back and rethink our prior conclusions on the subject to see if any other conclusions are better suited. Critical thinking can be contrasted with Authoritarian thinking. This type of thinking seeks to preserve the original conclusion. Here, thinking and conclusions are policed, as to question the system is to threaten the system. And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision. [1]

A condition for being recursive is to be open and not arrogant. If we come to a point where we think we have a handle on what is True, we are no longer open to consider, discuss, or accept information that might challenge our Truth. One becomes closed off and rejects everything that is different or strange–out of sync with one’s own Truth. To be open and recursive entails a sense of thinking about your beliefs in a critical and reflective way, so that you have a chance to either strengthen your belief system or revise it if needed. I have been teaching philosophy and humanities classes for nearly 20 years; critical thinking is the single most important skill you can develop. In close but second place is communication, In my view, communication skills follow as a natural result of critical thinking because you are attempting to think through and articulate stronger and rationally justified views. At the risk of sounding cliche, education isn’t about instilling content; it is about learning how to think.

In your philosophy classes your own ideas and beliefs will very likely be challenged. This does not mean that you will be asked to abandon your beliefs, but it does mean that you might be asked to defend them. Additionally, your mind will probably be twisted and turned about, which can be an uncomfortable experience. Yet, if at all possible, you should cherish these experiences and allow them to help you grow as a thinker. To be challenged and perplexed is difficult; however, it is worthwhile because it compels deeper thinking and more significant levels of understanding. In turn, thinking itself can transform us not only in thought, but in our beliefs, and our actions. Hannah Arendt, a social and political philosopher that came to the United States in exile during WWII, relates the transformative elements of philosophical thinking to Socrates. She writes:

Socrates…who is commonly said to have believed in the teachability of virtue, seems to have held that talking and thinking about piety, justice, courage, and the rest were liable to make men more pious, more just, more courageous, even though they were not given definitions or “values” to direct their further conduct. [2]

Thinking and communication are transformative insofar as these activities have the potential to alter our perspectives and, thus, change our behavior. In fact, Arendt connects the ability to think critically and reflectively to morality. As she notes above, morality does not have to give a predetermined set of rules to affect our behavior. Instead, morality can also be related to the open and sometimes perplexing conversations we have with others (and ourselves) about moral issues and moral character traits. Theodor W. Adorno, another philosopher that came to the United States in exile during WWII, argues that autonomous thinking (i.e. thinking for oneself) is crucial if we want to prevent the occurrence of another event like Auschwitz, a concentration camp where over 1 million individuals died during the Holocaust. [3] To think autonomously entails reflective and critical thinking—a type of thinking rooted in philosophical activity and a type of thinking that questions and challenges social norms and the status quo. In this sense thinking is critical of what is, allowing us to think beyond what is and to think about what ought to be, or what ought not be. This is one of the transformative elements of philosophical activity and one that is useful in promoting justice and ethical living.

With respect to the meaning of education, the German philosopher Hegel uses the term bildung, which means education or upbringing, to indicate the differences between the traditional type of education that focuses on facts and memorization, and education as transformative. Allen Wood explains how Hegel uses the term bildung: it is “a process of self-transformation and an acquisition of the power to grasp and articulate the reasons for what one believes or knows.” [4] If we think back through all of our years of schooling, particularly those subject matters that involve the teacher passing on information that is to be memorized and repeated, most of us would be hard pressed to recall anything substantial. However, if the focus of education is on how to think and the development of skills include analyzing, synthesizing, and communicating ideas and problems, most of us will use those skills whether we are in the field of philosophy, politics, business, nursing, computer programming, or education. In this sense, philosophy can help you develop a strong foundational skill set that will be marketable for your individual paths. While philosophy is not the only subject that will foster these skills, its method is one that heavily focuses on the types of activities that will help you develop such skills.

Let’s turn to discuss arguments. Arguments consist of a set of statements, which are claims that something is or is not the case, or is either true or false. The conclusion of your argument is a statement that is being argued for, or the point of view being argued for. The other statements serve as evidence or support for your conclusion; we refer to these statements as premises. It’s important to keep in mind that a statement is either true or false, so questions, commands, or exclamations are not statements. If we are thinking critically we will not accept a statement as true or false without good reason(s), so our premises are important here. Keep in mind the idea that supporting statements are called premises and the statement that is being supported is called the conclusion. Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: Capital punishment is morally justifiable since it restores some sense of

balance to victims or victims’ families.

Let’s break it down so it’s easier to see in what we might call a typical argument form:

Premise: Capital punishment restores some sense of balance to victims or victims’ families.

Conclusion: Capital punishment is morally justifiable.

Example 2 : Because innocent people are sometimes found guilty and potentially

executed, capital punishment is not morally justifiable.

Premise: Innocent people are sometimes found guilty and potentially executed.

Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally justifiable.

It is worth noting the use of the terms “since” and “because” in these arguments. Terms or phrases like these often serve as signifiers that we are looking at evidence, or a premise.

Check out another example:

Example 3 : All human beings are mortal. Heather is a human being. Therefore,

Heather is mortal.

Premise 1: All human beings are mortal.

Premise 2: Heather is a human being.

Conclusion: Heather is mortal.

In this example, there are a couple of things worth noting: First, there can be more than one premise. In fact, you could have a rather complex argument with several premises. If you’ve written an argumentative paper you may have encountered arguments that are rather complex. Second, just as the arguments prior had signifiers to show that we are looking at evidence, this argument has a signifier (i.e. therefore) to demonstrate the argument’s conclusion.

So many arguments!!! Are they all equally good?

No, arguments are not equally good; there are many ways to make a faulty argument. In fact, there are a lot of different types of arguments and, to some extent, the type of argument can help us figure out if the argument is a good one. For a full elaboration of arguments, take a logic class! Here’s a brief version:

Deductive Arguments: in a deductive argument the conclusion necessarily follows the premises. Take argument Example 3 above. It is absolutely necessary that Heather is a mortal, if she is a human being and if mortality is a specific condition for being human. We know that all humans die, so that’s tight evidence. This argument would be a very good argument; it is valid (i.e the conclusion necessarily follows the premises) and it is sound (i.e. all the premises are true).

Inductive Arguments : in an inductive argument the conclusion likely (at best) follows the premises. Let’s have an example:

Example 4 : 98.9% of all TCC students like pizza. You are a TCC student. Thus, you like pizza.

Premise 1: 98.9% of all TCC students like pizza

Premise 2: You are a TCC student.

Conclusion: You like pizza. (*Thus is a conclusion indicator)

In this example, the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow; it likely follows. But you might be part of that 1.1% for whatever reason. Inductive arguments are good arguments if they are strong. So, instead of saying an inductive argument is valid, we say it is strong. You can also use the term sound to describe the truth of the premises, if they are true. Let’s suppose they are true and you absolutely love Hideaway pizza. Let’s also assume you are a TCC student. So, the argument is really strong and it is sound.

There are many types of inductive argument, including: causal arguments, arguments based on probabilities or statistics, arguments that are supported by analogies, and arguments that are based on some type of authority figure. So, when you encounter an argument based on one of these types, think about how strong the argument is. If you want to see examples of the different types, a web search (or a logic class!) will get you where you need to go.

Some arguments are faulty, not necessarily because of the truth or falsity of the premises, but because they rely on psychological and emotional ploys. These are bad arguments because people shouldn’t accept your conclusion if you are using scare tactics or distracting and manipulating reasoning. Arguments that have this issue are called fallacies. There are a lot of fallacies, so, again, if you want to know more a web search will be useful. We are going to look at several that seem to be the most relevant for our day-to-day experiences.

• Inappropriate Appeal to Authority : We are definitely going to use authority figures in our lives (e.g. doctors, lawyers, mechanics, financial advisors, etc.), but we need to make sure that the authority figure is a reliable one.

Things to look for here might include: reputation in the field, not holding widely controversial views, experience, education, and the like. So, if we take an authority figure’s word and they’re not legit, we’ve committed the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example 5 : I think I am going to take my investments to Voya. After all, Steven Adams advocates for Voya in an advertisement I recently saw.

If we look at the criteria for evaluating arguments that appeal to authority figures, it is pretty easy to see that Adams is not an expert in the finance field. Thus, this is an inappropropriate appeal to authority.

• Slippery Slope Arguments : Slippery slope arguments are found everywhere it seems. The essential characteristic of a slippery slope argument is that it uses problematic premises to argue that doing ‘x’ will ultimately lead to other actions that are extreme, unlikely, and disastrous. You can think of this type of argument as a faulty chain of events or domino effect type of argument.

Example 6 : If you don’t study for your philosophy exam you will not do well on the exam. This will lead to you failing the class. The next thing you know you will have lost your scholarship, dropped out of school, and will be living on the streets without any chance of getting a job.

While you should certainly study for your philosophy exam, if you don’t it is unlikely that this will lead to your full economic demise.

One challenge to evaluating slippery slope arguments is that they are predictions, so we cannot be certain about what will or will not actually happen. But this chain of events type of argument should be assessed in terms of whether the outcome will likely follow if action ‘x” is pursued.

• Faulty Analogy : We often make arguments based on analogy and these can be good arguments. But we often use faulty reasoning with analogies and this is what we want to learn how to avoid.

When evaluating an argument that is based on an analogy here are a few things to keep in mind: you want to look at the relevant similarities and the relevant differences between the things that are being compared. As a general rule, if there are more differences than similarities the argument is likely weak.

Example 7 : Alcohol is legal. Therefore, we should legalize marijuana too.

So, the first step here is to identify the two things being compared, which are alcohol and marijuana. Next, note relevant similarities and differences. These might include effects on health, community safety, economic factors, criminal justice factors, and the like.

This is probably not the best argument in support for marijuana legalization. It would seem that one could just as easily conclude that since marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be too. In fact, one might find that alcohol is an often abused and highly problematic drug for many people, so it is too risky to legalize marijuana if it is similar to alcohol.

• Appeal to Emotion : Arguments should be based on reason and evidence, not emotional tactics. When we use an emotional tactic, we are essentially trying to manipulate someone into accepting our position by evoking pity or fear, when our positions should actually be backed by reasonable and justifiable evidence.

Example 8 : Officer please don’t give me a speeding ticket. My girlfriend broke up with me last night, my alarm didn’t go off this morning, and I’m late for class.

While this is a really horrible start to one’s day, being broken up with and an alarm malfunctioning is not a justifiable reason for speeding.

Example 9 : Professor, I’d like you to remember that my mother is a dean here at TCC. I’m sure that she will be very disappointed if I don’t receive an A in your class.

This is a scare tactic and is not a good way to make an argument. Scare tactics can come in the form of psychological or physical threats; both forms are to be avoided.

• Appeal to Ignorance : This fallacy occurs when our argument relies on lack of evidence when evidence is actually needed to support a position.

Example 10 : No one has proven that sasquatch doesn’t exist; therefore it does exist.

Example 11 : No one has proven God exists; therefore God doesn’t exist.

The key here is that lack of evidence against something cannot be an argument for something. Lack of evidence can only show that we are ignorant of the facts.

• Straw Man : A straw man argument is a specific type of argument that is intended to weaken an opponent’s position so that it is easier to refute. So, we create a weaker version of the original argument (i.e. a straw man argument), so when we present it everyone will agree with us and denounce the original position.

Example 12 : Women are crazy arguing for equal treatment. No one wants women hanging around men’s locker rooms or saunas.

This is a misrepresentation of arguments for equal treatment. Women (and others arguing for equal treatment) are not trying to obtain equal access to men’s locker rooms or saunas.

The best way to avoid this fallacy is to make sure that you are not oversimplifying or misrepresenting others’ positions. Even if we don’t agree with a position, we want to make the strongest case against it and this can only be accomplished if we can refute the actual argument, not a weakened version of it. So, let’s all bring the strongest arguments we have to the table!

• Red Herring : A red herring is a distraction or a change in subject matter. Sometimes this is subtle, but if you find yourself feeling lost in the argument, take a close look and make sure there is not an attempt to distract you.

Example 13 : Can you believe that so many people are concerned with global warming? The real threat to our country is terrorism.

It could be the case that both global warming and terrorism are concerns for us. But the red herring fallacy is committed when someone tries to distract you from the argument at hand by bringing up another issue or side-stepping a question. Politicians are masters at this, by the way.

• Appeal to the Person : This fallacy is also referred to as the ad hominem fallacy. We commit this fallacy when we dismiss someone’s argument or position by attacking them instead of refuting the premises or support for their argument.

Example 14 : I am not going to listen to what Professor ‘X’ has to say about the history of religion. He told one of his previous classes he wasn’t religious.

The problem here is that the student is dismissing course material based on the professor’s religious views and not evaluating the course content on its own ground.

To avoid this fallacy, make sure that you target the argument or their claims and not the person making the argument in your rebuttal.

• Hasty Generalization : We make and use generalizations on a regular basis and in all types of decisions. We rely on generalizations when trying to decide which schools to apply to, which phone is the best for us, which neighborhood we want to live in, what type of job we want, and so on. Generalizations can be strong and reliable, but they can also be fallacious. There are three main ways in which a generalization can commit a fallacy: your sample size is too small, your sample size is not representative of the group you are making a generalization about, or your data could be outdated.

Example 15 : I had horrible customer service at the last Starbucks I was at. It is clear that Starbucks employees do not care about their customers. I will never visit another Starbucks again.

The problem with this generalization is that the claim made about all Starbucks is based on one experience. While it is tempting to not spend your money where people are rude to their customers, this is only one employee and presumably doesn’t reflect all employees or the company as a whole. So, to make this a stronger generalization we would want to have a larger sample size (multiple horrible experiences) to support the claim. Let’s look at a second hasty generalization:

Example 16 : I had horrible customer service at the Starbucks on 81st street. It is clear that Starbucks employees do not care about their customers. I will never visit another Starbucks again.

The problem with this generalization mirrors the previous problem in that the claim is based on only one experience. But there’s an additional issue here as well, which is that the claim is based off of an experience at one location. To make a claim about the whole company, our sample group needs to be larger than one and it needs to come from a variety of locations.

• Begging the Question : An argument begs the question when the argument’s premises assume the conclusion, instead of providing support for the conclusion. One common form of begging the question is referred to as circular reasoning.

Example 17 : Of course, everyone wants to see the new Marvel movie is because it is the most popular movie right now!

The conclusion here is that everyone wants to see the new Marvel movie, but the premise simply assumes that is the case by claiming it is the most popular movie. Remember the premise should give reasons for the conclusion, not merely assume it to be true.

• Equivocation : In the English language there are many words that have different meanings (e.g. bank, good, right, steal, etc.). When we use the same word but shift the meaning without explaining this move to your audience, we equivocate the word and this is a fallacy. So, if you must use the same word more than once and with more than one meaning you need to explain that you’re shifting the meaning you intend. Although, most of the time it is just easier to use a different word.

Example 18 : Yes, philosophy helps people argue better, but should we really encourage people to argue? There is enough hostility in the world.

Here, argue is used in two different senses. The meaning of the first refers to the philosophical meaning of argument (i.e. premises and a conclusion), whereas the second sense is in line with the common use of argument (i.e. yelling between two or more people, etc.).

• Henry Imler, ed., Phronesis An Ethics Primer with Readings, (2018). 7-8. ↵
• Arendt, Hannah, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” Social Research, 38:3 (1971: Autumn): 431. ↵
• Theodor W. Adorno, “Education After Auschwitz,” in Can One Live After Auschwitz, ed. by Rolf Tiedemann, trans. by Rodney Livingstone (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003): 23. ↵
• Allen W. Wood, “Hegel on Education,” in Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives, ed. Amelie O. Rorty (London: Routledge 1998): 302. ↵

LOGOS: Critical Thinking, Arguments, and Fallacies Copyright © 2020 by Heather Wilburn, Ph.D is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Think Critically, Live Honestly

Slippery Slope

Imagine a tiny snowball rolling down a hill, growing into a massive avalanche - that's the essence of a certain reasoning error. It's the unfounded belief that one small action will inevitably trigger a domino effect, leading to a catastrophic outcome, often without any solid evidence or consideration of possible interventions along the way. This dramatic oversimplification, fueled by fear and exaggeration, is a captivating yet flawed way of thinking, as it overlooks the complexity and unpredictability of real-life situations.

• Cause and Effect
• Probability and Possibility

Definition of Slippery Slope 

A Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy that assumes a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, usually negative. This fallacy is often characterized by a lack of evidence that these events are causally linked or that this disastrous outcome is certain to happen. It is based on speculation rather than facts, and it relies on fear and exaggeration to make a point. The argument is flawed because it ignores the possibility that we can stop the progression at any point in the 'slope'. In essence, the Slippery Slope fallacy oversimplifies potential outcomes by suggesting that a single action will necessarily cause a specific, often extreme, result.

In Depth Explanation

The Slippery Slope fallacy is a fascinating error in reasoning that can be quite captivating to explore. It's like a snowball rolling down a hill, gaining momentum and size as it descends, except in this case, the snowball is an argument, and the hill is a chain of events or consequences. The Slippery Slope fallacy occurs when someone argues that a particular action will inevitably lead to a specific chain of events or outcomes, without providing any substantive evidence to support this claim. Imagine you're standing at the top of a hill. You take a step forward and suddenly, you're sliding uncontrollably down the slope. This is the visual metaphor that underpins the Slippery Slope fallacy. It suggests that one action (the step forward) will inevitably lead to a catastrophic outcome (sliding down the hill), without any chance to stop or change direction. In abstract reasoning, the Slippery Slope fallacy often manifests itself in arguments where the connection between the initial action and the predicted outcome is either weak or non-existent. The person making the argument assumes that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second. This is a fallacy because it ignores the possibility of other intervening variables or events that could influence the outcome. The logical structure of the Slippery Slope fallacy is fairly straightforward. It begins with an initial action or decision, followed by a series of events or outcomes that are predicted to occur as a direct result of the initial action. The fallacy lies in the assumption that these events will inevitably occur, without any evidence to support this claim. The potential impact of the Slippery Slope fallacy on rational discourse is significant. It can lead to fear-mongering, as people may be swayed by the catastrophic outcomes predicted in the argument, even if there is no evidence to suggest these outcomes will occur. It can also stifle debate and discussion, as it presents the outcome as inevitable, leaving no room for alternative viewpoints or solutions. Understanding the Slippery Slope fallacy is crucial for anyone interested in critical thinking and logical analysis. It's a common error in reasoning that can easily sway public opinion and stifle rational discourse. By recognizing this fallacy, we can challenge unsupported claims and promote more balanced, evidence-based discussions.

Real World Examples

1. Gun Control: A common example of the slippery slope fallacy is often seen in debates about gun control. One side might argue, "If we allow the government to regulate our right to own guns, it won't be long before they come for our other rights. Next, they'll be limiting our freedom of speech, then our right to assemble, and before we know it, we'll be living in a totalitarian state." This argument assumes that one action (regulating gun ownership) will inevitably lead to a series of progressively worse outcomes, without providing any evidence to support this chain of events. 2. Internet Censorship: Another example can be seen in discussions about internet censorship. Someone might argue, "If the government starts censoring the internet, it's only a matter of time before they start controlling everything we see and hear. Soon, they'll be monitoring our personal conversations, tracking our every move, and we'll have no privacy left at all." This argument uses the slippery slope fallacy by suggesting that a single action (internet censorship) will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes, without providing evidence to support this progression. 3. Alcohol Consumption: A parent might tell their teenager, "If you start drinking alcohol, even casually, it will lead to harder drugs. Before you know it, you'll be addicted to heroin and your life will be ruined." This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming that a single action (drinking alcohol) will inevitably lead to a worst-case scenario (heroin addiction), without any evidence to support this progression. While it's true that some people who drink alcohol also use harder drugs, it's not accurate or fair to suggest that one always leads to the other.

Countermeasures

Countering a slippery slope argument requires a focus on the logical structure of the argument itself. Here are some strategies: 1. Question the Causal Link: Ask for evidence that supports the claim that one event will inevitably lead to the other. This challenges the assumption that a minor action will result in a major, typically negative, outcome. 2. Demand Precision: Request for clarity and specificity about the steps involved in the supposed slope. This can expose gaps or flaws in the argument. 3. Encourage a Balanced View: Promote the consideration of potential positive outcomes or neutral effects, not just negative ones. This can help to counteract the fear-based reasoning often used in slippery slope arguments. 4. Promote Critical Thinking: Encourage the use of critical thinking skills to evaluate the argument. This can help to identify any flaws or biases in the reasoning. 5. Advocate for Reasonable Limits: Argue for the possibility of setting reasonable limits or safeguards to prevent the feared outcome. This can challenge the idea that there are no possible interventions to stop the slide down the slope. 6. Use Counterexamples: While avoiding relying solely on examples, judicious use of counterexamples can be effective. This can demonstrate that the supposed inevitable outcome is not, in fact, inevitable. 7. Challenge Assumptions: Question the underlying assumptions of the argument. This can reveal any biases or prejudices that may be influencing the reasoning. 8. Encourage Empirical Evidence: Ask for empirical evidence to support the claims being made. This can help to ensure that the argument is based on facts, not just speculation or fear. Remember, the goal is not to attack the person making the argument, but to challenge the logic of the argument itself. This approach promotes respectful and productive dialogue.

Thought Provoking Questions

1. Can you identify a situation where you have assumed that a small action or decision would inevitably lead to a significant, usually negative, outcome without concrete evidence to support this belief? 2. Have you ever used fear or exaggeration to emphasize a point, rather than relying on factual evidence? Can you see how this might lead to a slippery slope fallacy? 3. Can you recall a time when you oversimplified potential outcomes by suggesting that a single action would necessarily cause a specific, often extreme, result? How might this have affected your decision-making process? 4. Can you think of an instance where you ignored the possibility of stopping the progression at any point in the 'slope'? How might acknowledging this possibility have changed your perspective or approach?

Weekly Newsletter

Gain insights and clarity each week as we explore logical fallacies in our world. Sharpen your critical thinking and stay ahead in a world of misinformation. Sign up today!

Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken or invalidate an argument. Whether they’re used intentionally or unintentionally, they can be quite persuasive. Learning how to identify fallacies is an excellent way to avoid being fooled or manipulated by faulty arguments. It will also help you avoid making fallacious arguments yourself! 

Scroll through to learn to identify some of the more common fallacies. Once you can recognize them, you’ll see them everywhere!

A note on how to use this post: This page is a resource of the most common logical fallacies, and is not intended to be read from top to bottom. Feel free to share the graphics to help educate others about errors in reasoning. Hopefully together we can encourage more productive (and logical!) dialogue.

Other names: Personal attack, name-calling

Definition and explanation : Latin for “to the person,” the ad hominem fallacy is a personal attack. Essentially, instead of addressing the substance of an argument, someone is attempting to discredit the argument by attacking the source. 

The ad hominem is one of the most common logical fallacies. While it can take many forms — from name calling and insults, to attacking a person’s character, to questioning their motives, to calling them hypocrites — any argument that targets the source, rather than the argument, is an ad hominem. Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments are often quite effective because they appeal to people’s emotions and biases. 

No matter the form, the ad hominem is fallacious because the source of the argument is irrelevant to the substance of the argument. It’s a diversion tactic.

How to counter: While there are many sub-types of ad hominem fallacies, identifying the exact kind is less important than recognizing someone is attempting to divert from your argument back onto you in some way. It might be tempting to respond to their attack in kind. However, by resorting to an ad hominem fallacy, an arguer is essentially admitting they lack a substantive argument. Instead of letting them get under your skin, point out the irrelevance of their argument. Or, you could ignore it and move on!

Back to the Top

A necdotal fallacy.

For a more detailed explanation : Four ways your personal experiences can lead you astray

Definition and explanation : The anecdotal fallacy uses a personal experience or story as evidence for a claim.

Many people think personal experiences provide the best kind of evidence. “We’ll believe it when we see it!” But anecdotes are infamously unreliable. 

• We can misperceive our experiences. While there is an objective reality outside of our heads, our perception of that reality is a subjective interpretation. Our brains filter and interpret stimuli and fill in any gaps based on expectations. Yet even though our perceptions are flawed and incomplete, we’re convinced we “know” what we saw or experienced.  For example, eyewitness testimony tends to be among the most valued forms of evidence in a trial…yet it’s also the leading cause of wrongful convictions. 
• Anecdotes aren’t controlled. Imagine you have a headache and take a supplement. Your headache gets better! Was it due to the supplement? The correct answer is: You don’t know. Any number of things could’ve been the cause. (And also…nearly all headaches go away on their own.) That’s why treatments are tested in carefully controlled trials that compare the treatment to a placebo. 
• Anecdotes often aren’t typical. Small samples are often not representative of normal conditions. Yet because the human brain doesn’t intuitively grasp probabilities we rely on stories or experiences when deciding what to believe.  Consider the following examples: My cousin was mugged in Sydney, so Australia is dangerous. Toyotas are unreliable because I once had a Toyota that was always in the shop. This winter seemed really cold, so there’s no global warming. 
• Finally, people aren’t always truthful.  Did that person on social media REALLY lose weight eating bacon and ice cream? Did your dad exaggerate his “ghost” story? Did the person in the testimonial really “cure” their acne with the supplement? It’s the hard truth, but people can lie.

The bottom line: Anecdotes aren’t good evidence. 

How to counter : First, it’s important to not fall for this fallacy yourself. Remember that your brain prefers stories – especially vivid and emotional ones – to data. So if your goal is to align your beliefs with reality, be skeptical about the conclusions you can draw from your lived experiences and be humble enough to admit that you might be wrong.

In conversations with others, be empathetic. Most people are convinced that anecdotes are a sure-fire way of knowing what’s true, and it can be quite difficult to convince someone that they might be wrong. We don’t like to admit that we can be fooled, especially by ourselves. If the conversation allows, gently explain why anecdotes aren’t good evidence.

Appeal to authority

Other names: Argument from authority, appeal to false authority

Definition and explanation : The appeal to authority fallacy claims that something is true based on the position of an assumed authority. 

This fallacy is very common, and can be quite tricky, so it’s important to be able to recognize it and understand when it is and isn’t fallacious. In general, arguments should have evidence, and authorities aren’t evidence. However, since it’s impossible for any of us to verify every single thing ourselves, we often rely on experts. For example, we trust mechanics to fix cars, doctors to treat diseases, and pilots to fly planes. Due to their experience, training, and knowledge, experts are better able to evaluate evidence related to their areas of expertise. Therefore, citing actual experts isn’t an appeal to authority. However, citing authorities can only support an argument, not prove it, as experts can be wrong… though they are more likely to be right than non-experts. 

An appeal to authority IS fallacious when:

• The “authority” isn’t an expert. This is probably the most common form of the fallacy, and easiest to spot. For example, Jenny McCarthy isn’t a vaccine expert, the Food Babe isn’t a nutrition expert, and Tom Brady isn’t a health expert, yet all use their celebrity to promote products or services. Or consider a senator who says climate change is a hoax, or your math teacher who claims aliens built the pyramids. The point is, these supposed “authorities” aren’t experts, so their testimony doesn’t hold any weight.
• The “authority” is an expert in another area. The opinion of experts is only relevant within their area of expertise. For example, a heart surgeon is not an expert in climate change and a physicist is not an expert in cancer. An advanced degree does not make someone an expert in all areas, and there will always be someone with a doctorate who has crackpot ideas. So when an authority makes a claim, it’s important to ask whether they are in a position to make such a claim.
• The “authority” makes a claim that is contrary to the expert consensus in that particular area. The expert consensus is the collective agreed-upon knowledge of experts in a specialized field. As non-experts, the consensus is the most reliable form of knowledge. However, it can be difficult for the average person to sort out, especially when someone who appears to be a legitimate expert makes claims contrary to the consensus. But if you’re cherry picking an authority with a minority position to make an argument, but neglecting the authority of the expert consensus, you’re committing an appeal to authority.

The bottom line is that if you’re going to cite an authority to make an argument, it needs to be an actual expert on the topic at hand, and one who is in line with the expert consensus, otherwise you’ve committed an appeal to authority fallacy. How to counter: We’re often unaware of how many of our beliefs originated from trusted authority figures, such as teachers, parents, and various online sources. Only when we have to defend a belief do we realize how much of our knowledge we’ve outsourced… which can result in us committing an appeal to authority fallacy. Get in the habit of evaluating authorities to determine if they have the expertise to make various claims. And empathize with others who may not yet know how to discern who is and isn’t a reliable authority.

To learn more: The Logic of Science: Appealing to Authority vs Deferring to Experts

Appeal to emotions

Definition and explanation : The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotion to persuade, instead of evidence. 

This fallacy is actually a broad category of fallacies that includes appeals to any number of emotions, ranging from negative –– anger, jealousy, shame, hate, and disgust — to positive — happiness, hope, courage, and love. Recognizing which specific emotion was used isn’t as important as realizing that an argument has substituted logical reasons with emotional ones.

However, it’s important to note that the use of emotions in-and-of-itself is not fallacious, as they can be relevant to an argument. It’s only fallacious when feelings are used instead of facts as evidence that something is true or false. 

The appeal to emotion fallacy is often used alongside other fallacies and rhetorical techniques in an attempt to bolster up an argument. For example, loaded , hyperbolic, or even inflammatory, language is common, as are ad hominem attacks, name-calling, YELLING, etc. 

As you might expect, the appeal to emotion is common in advertisements, politics, propaganda…and quite frankly, everywhere. It can also be very effective, as many of us are unaware of how much our emotions can drive our reasoning. This not only leaves us vulnerable to emotional manipulation by others, it also makes us prone to committing this fallacy ourselves. (When we’re emotional we tend to make emotional arguments.)

If you notice that you’re emotionally triggered in some way, practice emotional skepticism. Instead of allowing your emotions to control you, try to take a step back and evaluate the arguments on their merits.

How to counter : As always, it’s important not to commit this fallacy yourself. One of the most important – and difficult – critical thinking skills is emotional awareness. Ask yourself: are my emotions driving my reasoning? And if so, am I using emotions to argue? In short, try to argue with facts, not feelings.

If someone else is appealing to your emotions, consider that it might not be a deliberate attempt to manipulate your reasoning. Sometimes they’re a reflection of the emotions of the person making the argument. We all do it from time to time, so have empathy! They may not realize what they’re doing. Instead, kindly point out the error and ask for evidence.

The bottom line is that arguments should be supported by evidence – and emotions aren’t evidence.

Appeal to nature

Definition and explanation : The appeal to nature fallacy argues that something is good because it’s natural or bad because it’s unnatural. 

There are two major reasons the appeal to nature is fallacious:

• “Natural” is difficult to define. Many things that are “unnatural” come from nature, so when does something stop being natural? For example, oil is natural, and plastic is made from oil. Is plastic natural? Many antibiotics originally came from nature, so are antibiotics natural? It’s also often unclear what someone means by “natural.”  People will often use vague terms like “chemicals” to denote that something is unnatural. But literally everything is made of chemicals. The point is, dividing things into natural and synthetic is often a false choice. Like most things in life, it’s not black and white, but shades of gray. 
• We can’t assume something is good based on whether it’s natural or unnatural. I have bad news: nature doesn’t care if you live. Nature is full of things that will harm or kill you, from typhoons to botulinum to viruses to sharks.  Also, human advancements that are considered “unnatural” have greatly improved our quality and quantity of life. Flushing toilets, treated drinking water, antibiotics, and vaccines have nearly doubled our life expectancy over the last century. 

Appeals to nature are very common, as advertisers are acutely aware of our tendency to think natural equals good. For example, “all natural” labels are ubiquitous on food packages; personal care products claim they are “plant based” and “chemical free”; and alternative medicine routinely claims its “natural” treatments are safer than the “chemicals” and “pharmaceuticals” used in modern medicine. 

The point is, the appeal to nature is fallacious because we simply cannot determine if something is good based on whether it’s perceived to be natural.

How to counter: First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often it’s used to sell products. Then ask yourself what they mean by “natural,” and remember that its supposed naturalness doesn’t inherently mean it’s good. 

When countering the appeal to nature fallacy, keep in mind how pervasive the belief is. Consider asking questions to get to the root of someone’s misunderstandings, and based on their responses, offer gentle explanations. To learn more : The Logic of Science: Dying the way that nature intended: Appeal to nature fallacies

Appeal to tradition

Other names: Appeal to antiquity, appeal to age, appeal to custom

Definition and explanation : The appeal to tradition fallacy asserts that something is good or true because it’s old, or because it’s the way it’s “always been done.” 

People have a fascination with the past, from ancient civilizations to old cultural traditions to long-standing familial practices. We tend to stick with the familiar, and assume it’s the right, or better, way of doing things. We have believing brains , and often believe what we’re told, perpetuating beliefs over generations, even if the beliefs aren’t true.

The appeal to tradition fallacy is very common, and if you’re not paying attention it can be quite convincing. We equate being around for a long time with standing the test of time. For example, astrology has been used for millennia, and acupuncture is an ancient practice… so they must work! Sometimes that’s true. But we’ve also weeded out a lot of bad ideas. The “ancients” believed the earth was flat and diseases were caused by witches. We can thank science and progress for discovering that germs cause diseases and bloodletting isn’t an effective treatment. (Or burning witches at the stake!)

The appeal to tradition is fallacious because it substitutes actual reasons with historical ones. If something truly works, provide the evidence. “Ancient wisdom” and “this is the way it’s always been done” are NOT sufficient.

How to counter: First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often it’s used to sell products and services, or to justify existing social, cultural, or religious practices. Then ask yourself: Other than tradition, what is the evidence?

When countering the appeal to tradition fallacy, remember how pervasive the belief is, then consider explaining why it’s fallacious. It might even be a good opportunity to explain the value of evidence!

Argument from ignorance

Other names: Appeal to ignorance

Definition and explanation : The argument from ignorance fallacy asserts that something is true, because we don’t know that it’s not. A foundation of critical thinking is that claims require evidence, and claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A lack of evidence simply demonstrates our ignorance, and is not a reason to believe. 

This fallacy is commonly used by science deniers, pseudoscience proponents, conspiracy theorists, and believers in the supernatural who point to anomalies that aren’t immediately easily explainable as “evidence” of their beliefs. Was that a UFO? Bigfoot? A ghost? A miracle? We don’t know that it wasn’t, so it must have been! 

The argument from ignorance is fallacious because when we don’t know, we simply don’t know! A more rational response is to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and demand sufficient evidence before accepting a claim.

This fallacy is frequently committed alongside the burden of proof fallacy , which is when someone makes a claim without evidence then demands their opponent disprove their claim. They then claim their belief is true because you can’t disprove it.

How to counter: If someone is unfamiliar with critical thinking, they may not understand the importance of evidence. Kindly remind them that claims require evidence. And if they demand that you disprove their claim, remind them that they bear the burden of proof. 

Other names: Appeal to the masses, appeal to common belief, argumentum ad populum, appeal to popularity

Definition and explanation : The bandwagon fallacy argues that a claim is true because a lot of people believe it’s true, or conversely a claim is not true because a lot of people believe it’s not. 

Because humans are social animals, the bandwagon fallacy can be quite convincing. A common tactic is to claim “everybody knows” or “people say/think.” Unsurprisingly, advertisers use our desire to belong by touting the popularity of their products. Likewise, politicians appeal to their popularity when trying to earn our support. But bandwagon is fallacious because popularity doesn’t determine truth. A lot of people can be, and have been, wrong. Your parents may have warned you about the potential harm of peer pressure when they asked rhetorically, “If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?!?!”

How to counter: It’s important to remember that the truth of a claim isn’t determined by its popularity but by the evidence supporting it. Therefore, once you recognize the use of the bandwagon fallacy, call it out, and ask for evidence.

Burden of proof

Other names: Shifting the burden of proof

Definition and explanation : A person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence for their claim. This standard is the foundation of our legal system, the process of science, and critical thinking. How much evidence is sufficient depends on the claim, but more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary evidence. And claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, but instead of providing evidence, they demand their opponent disprove their claim. To illustrate why this is fallacious, imagine a prosecutor charging a suspect with murder, but instead of presenting evidence to establish the suspect’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they demand the suspect prove their innocence. The point is, it’s never up to anyone else to prove your claim wrong. You made the claim, you need to provide evidence.

The burden of proof fallacy frequently appears alongside the argument from ignorance fallacy , which is when someone asserts a claim is true because no one has proven it false. But remember that the truth of a claim is determined by the amount of evidence supporting it. A lack of evidence simply means we don’t know.

How to counter: Evasion of the burden of proof can take many forms, from shifting the burden to their opponent (eg “prove me wrong”), to making claims that can’t be disproved (eg supernatural or subjective), to shifting the burden onto vague sources (eg “they say”).  People unfamiliar with critical thinking are often unaware of the burden of proof concept, or even evidence-based thinking. To respond, point out that they’ve made a claim that requires evidence and that they bear the burden of proof. 

Cherry picking

Definition and explanation : The cherry picking fallacy occurs when evidence is selectively chosen to support a claim instead of considering all available evidence. 

Imagine a cherry tree, where each of the cherries represent a piece of evidence for a claim. If the goal is to determine the truth of the claim, it’s essential to look at the body of evidence. But by cherry picking favorable evidence – and ignoring contradictory evidence – the overall understanding of an issue can be distorted.

It’s possible to selectively choose evidence to support nearly any position and miss the bigger picture. For example, everything living thing needs liquid water. In fact, water is so essential to life that, when looking for life outside of Earth, we look for evidence of water. But, what if I told you that all serial killers have admitted to drinking water? Or that it’s the primary ingredient in many toxic pesticides? Or that drinking too much water can lead to death? By selectively choosing these facts, we’re left with a distorted, inaccurate view of water’s importance for life.

Sometimes cherry picking is a deliberate attempt to deceive. However, sometimes it’s not purposeful, but a result of the arguer’s desire to believe. (No one can lie to us like we can.) In either case, the more motivated we are the “better” we are at cherry picking, and the more fallacious the argument. 

How to counter : This fallacy can be convincing and can even lead to overconfidence in a position. After all, cherry picked evidence is still evidence! That said, if the goal is to find the truth, all evidence must be considered.

As always, be sure you don’t commit this fallacy yourself! Be aware of potential emotions and biases that could be driving your reasoning.

And if someone else commits this fallacy, apply the principle of charity. It’s possible that their selection of evidence was caused by a desire to believe, not a desire to deceive. Then gently point out evidence they might not have considered.

False Cause

Other names: Confusing correlation and causation, Questionable cause, Mistaking correlation for causation, Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Definition and explanation : The false cause fallacy assumes that two events are causally connected when they aren’t. 

You may have heard the phrase, “Correlation doesn’t prove causation.” And it’s true… but what does that mean? Let’s start with a couple of definitions:

• Correlation : A co-relationship or link exists between things or events, so that they occur together
• Causation : A change in one thing or event causes a change in another

The point is that just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one caused the other. Sometimes it’s just a coincidence, and sometimes there’s something else causing both events.

For example, every morning the rooster crows and the sun rises. These two events are correlated. But the rooster doesn’t cause the sunrise.

While that may be an obvious example, it’s very easy to confuse correlation and causation. And if we’re not careful, we can easily be fooled. It’s human nature to search for explanations by finding patterns and connecting the dots. Maybe you ate a sandwich for lunch and threw up later? Or maybe you wore your lucky socks and hit a home run? But are these events causally related? We often don’t know, yet assume we do. 

Science can help sort correlation from causation, but it’s complicated, as only carefully controlled studies can demonstrate causation. Let’s say we want to find out if Echinacea treats the common cold.  We randomly divide subjects into two groups, where one gets Echinacea and the other a placebo. (Importantly, we don’t let the participants know which group they’re in!) If the group receiving Echinacea reports shorter and less severe colds than the placebo group, we can say that Echinacea has a causal effect on colds. This research has been done , and Echinacea does not treat colds. However, many people will swear that it does, because they’ve tried it and their cold went away. Some of this is probably a placebo effect. But also… colds go away. That’s a correlation.  

However, it’s not always possible (or ethical) to control. Therefore much of science involves observational studies, where data is collected in the “real world.” Because the real world is messy, these studies only provide correlations. For example, people observed that smokers tended to get lung cancer. We can’t ethically ask study participants to smoke to see if they get sick… so we had to study the issue in other ways, such as epidemiological studies. Through lots of research exploring the different possible variables that could be causing the link between smoking and lung cancer, eventually we concluded smoking almost certainly causes lung cancer. 

The false cause fallacy is extremely common, so it’s important to learn how to recognize it so we don’t fall for it ourselves. We not only see patterns everywhere, much of science is based on studies that provide “links.” We should always keep in mind the limits of what we can say about the relationship between events. Your best bet is to be skeptical and hold off on assuming causation until you know more.

How to counter:  First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often you perceive correlations. Then think through what else might be behind the relationship. We all want explanations, and understanding the difference between correlation and causation can be an empowering way to make better decisions.

In conversations with others, remember that they may not know the difference between correlation and causation. So if someone commits this fallacy give them the benefit of the doubt, and try to gently explain it to them. We all would benefit from understanding the difference!

False choice

Other names: False dilemma, false dichotomy, black-or-white, either/or, fallacy of the excluded middle

Definition and explanation : The false choice oversimplifies a complex issue into two options, ignoring the possibility that other options may exist. In this fallacy, the arguer frames their opponent’s choices as black or white, this or that, when in reality there is likely a spectrum of options in between. Often, the choices presented are used to shut down debate and force an opponent into the arguer’s preferred position.

False choice fallacies are quite common, and they can be very powerful, so it’s important to be able to recognize them. Binary thinking can force us into positions we wouldn’t normally take. The false choice is fallacious because the vast majority of the time there are more than two positions available to us. 

How to counter: First, consider the possibility that the false choice was unintentional, due to an emotional attachment to one of the choices or a lack of knowledge on the issue. Sometimes, however, the false choice was a purposeful attempt to strengthen the arguer’s position, by presenting their view as the only reasonable option. Depending on the circumstances, it can be difficult to propose an alternative, as the two options may have been presented to force choosing a side. 

The most important thing is to not let a false choice limit your options. So ask yourself, are these really my only two choices?

False EQUIVALENCE

Definition and explanation : The false equivalence fallacy argues that two or more things are the same, despite having important differences.

Comparisons can be a powerful way to understand new concepts, as they help us to make connections with things we already know.  

But the devil is in the details. While superficial similarities are often easier to see, they may be masking important differences…and if we’re not careful we could be misled.

The false equivalence fallacy can take many different forms, some of which include:

• Oversimplifying a comparison by exaggerating a shared characteristic, downplaying important differences, or removing essential context or nuance, such as comparing things that have differing orders of magnitude. Or in other words, comparing apples to oranges .
• Presenting a false balance by giving equal weight to “both sides” of an argument despite one side being supported by significantly more evidence. Sometimes called bothsidesism , this type of false equivalence is often committed by the media, especially when covering science. In their attempt to avoid bias, opposing “sides” of an issue are given equal air time, creating the impression of a balanced debate.
• Drawing a moral equivalence between actions that aren’t comparable. Sometimes referred to as whataboutism , it implies all parties are equally wrong or to blame. Essentially, this is a diversion tactic, used to justify someone’s behavior and/or deflect criticism. 

False equivalences are very common and can be quite persuasive if you’re not paying attention. It’s often easier to see similarities than it is to dive into the weeds and analyze how things are different, but just because they seem to share an attribute does not make them equivalent.  So if someone makes a comparison, stop and ask yourself: Are there important differences that would invalidate the conclusion? 

How to counter : First, it’s important to not commit this fallacy yourself! If you’re making a comparison, don’t just think about how they’re similar, try to think about how they’re different.  Make sure you’re able to justify why things are equivalent in a way that’s relevant to the conclusion.

In conversations with others, (kindly) explain to them why their argument is flawed. Point out that, while there are similarities, there are key differences that impact their conclusion. 

GALILEO GAMBIT

Definition and explanation: The Galileo gambit claims that someone must be correct because they’ve been criticized, often for disagreeing with a scientific consensus. The argument suggests that, since Galileo was thought to be wrong but was later proven right, people who are thought to be wrong today will also be proven right.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an astronomer who was convicted by the church for his support of heliocentrism, the idea that the sun (and not the earth) was the center of the universe.

Those who deny science are quite fond of pointing out that “Galileo was branded a denier” and often point to this famous quote: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

But many who use Galileo’s name are missing a few important things.

The Galileo gambit is a type of false equivalence , which compares things that have important differences. For example, Galileo was suppressed by the Church, not the “scientific establishment”. While the scientists continued to disagree and collect evidence, they didn’t ban his teachings or put him under house arrest for heresy. Conversely, the Church didn’t clear Galileo’s name or admit he was right until 1992 !

And importantly, disagreeing with a consensus doesn’t make a position correct. The vast majority of people (scientists included!) who refuse to accept well-supported scientific conclusions are just wrong. 

Those who compare themselves to Galileo imagine themselves as being persecuted or censored for bravely standing up to a scientific establishment. But feeling persecuted isn’t the same as being correct. And ironically, those who deny overwhelming evidence bear more resemblance to the ideologically-motivated church than to the scientific community.

This fallacy is also based on the idea, largely a myth, that scientific advancements are overturned by lone geniuses. Galileo was building on the work of Nicolas Copernicus. Around the same time, Johannes Kepler was developing the laws of planetary motion. And in 1687, Isaac Newton explained planetary motion using the universal law of gravitation.

For every fringe idea that turns out to be true, there are countless others that are just wrong. As Carl Sagan said, “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

Circling back to Galileo’s quote , the “authority” of which he was speaking was the religious authorities in the Church, not scientists. He also wasn’t saying that disagreeing with authorities is what makes someone right, but their “humble reasoning.” In short, evidence trumps authority.

The point is, denying a consensus doesn’t make you like Galileo. Revolutionary ideas do get accepted, but they require evidence. We don’t remember Galileo because he disagreed, but because he was right. 

How to counter: While science denial relies heavily on the use of logical fallacies, the Galileo gambit is one of the most reliable indicators . It’s easier to think of ourselves as outsider geniuses heroically standing up for the truth than it is to admit the much more likely possibility that it’s us who’s wrong. No one likes to think of themselves as a science denier. 

Science denial usually stems from a desire to avoid accepting conclusions that conflict with our identity or ideology, or those in which we don’t like the solutions (i.e., solution aversion ). Thus, if you see this fallacy in use, consider the underlying motivations. 

One option is to explain why the comparison with Galileo doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  Or you could simply ask, what evidence would change their mind ?

Hasty GeNeralization S

Other names : Jumping to conclusions, argument from small numbers, overgeneralization, biased generalization

Definition and explanation : The hasty generalization fallacy draws a broad conclusion based on a small sample. 

All day, every day, we use limited information to generalize. By definition we have to, as we will never have fully complete data sets to analyze for each and every decision. However, the strength of our conclusion depends on our sample: those based on larger and more representative samples are significantly stronger than those based on smaller or atypical samples.

The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when we use limited evidence (i.e. a small sample) to make a broad claim. Often the examples we use to support our conclusion (i.e. our “sample”) are simply anecdotes , such as our own personal experiences or stories we’ve heard from others. Armed with our “evidence”, we jump to a conclusion. Essentially, we assume our “sample” is representative of reality. But not only are our experiences limited, our biases can influence the examples we choose, resulting in a conclusion that isn’t justified.

For example:

• Anthony was bitten by a cat when he was young, so he concludes that “all cats bite.” 
• Leslie claims “smoking isn’t bad for you,” because his dad smoked his whole life “and was fine.” 
• Monica was mugged on her vacation in Sydney, so she claims that “Australia is a dangerous country.” 
• Jason doesn’t like the news coverage of his favorite politician, so he says “all media is biased.”

Hasty generalizations can lead to the formation of stereotypes, as we assume our limited experiences with people can be generalized to their supposed “group.” For example:

• Mauve hasn’t had the best experience with her younger co-workers, so she claims that “all Millennials are lazy.”
• Sean was cut off in traffic by a female, so he thinks that “all women are bad drivers.”
• Marjorie saw a news story about an illegal immigrant who committed murder, so she says that “all illegal immigrants are dangerous.”
• Jaimie thinks that “all Muslims are terrorists” because of the way she sees them portrayed on TV.

Hasty generalization fallacies are very common and can be quite convincing. They are supported by “evidence,” after all. (Though they’re often unreliable, anecdotes can be very powerful.) Even more, once we’ve jumped to a conclusion, confirmation bias kicks in and we “see” supporting evidence everywhere…so we become even more convinced we’re right.

How to counter : First, it’s important not to fall for this fallacy yourself. While making generalizations is unavoidable, we should remember that the resulting conclusions are tentative, and therefore avoid overconfidence and exaggerated language (e.g. all/none, always/never). In short, don’t make arguments you can’t support!

If someone else makes a hasty generalization, ask for evidence! (As always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.) Based on their response, consider pointing out the fallacy in their argument and that there’s insufficient evidence to justify their claim. Remember to be kind, as they honestly might not know their argument was flawed. 

Either way, consider looking up reliable data (if it’s available), and proportion your acceptance of the conclusion accordingly.

I’m entitled to my opinion

Definition and explanation : It is true that everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, “I’m entitled to my opinion,” is often used to shield an unsupported position. And being entitled to your opinion doesn’t mean you’re right, or that anyone needs to take your opinion seriously.

There are several problems with this fallacy. 

• An opinion doesn’t mean what they think it means. Opinions are subjective judgements or viewpoints. When someone claims they are “entitled to their opinion,” it’s often because they are trying to shield factually incorrect assertions.  
• All opinions aren’t equal. Expert opinions are interpretations of evidence based on years of study and experience, and are significantly more robust and reliable than non-expert opinions. “I’m entitled to my opinion” suggests that their opinion is just as good as anyone else’s.
• We should all be open to changing our minds if the evidence suggests we should. “I’m entitled to my opinion” is essentially an admission that they can’t justify their position… but yet they’re unwilling to entertain contradictory evidence or other points of view. 

In the face of facts that contradict a belief, especially one central to our identity or values, we use  motivated reasoning  to reduce the  cognitive dissonance  that arises when reality and our beliefs are in conflict. When that fails, our Get Out of Jail Free Card is to defend the belief by rendering it unfalsifiable and therefore immune to evidence. We move the goalposts. Discount sources or deny evidence. Proclaim that it’s our opinion.

It’s important to remember that the purpose of arguing isn’t to be right, it’s to get it right. “I’m entitled to my opinion” shuts down any further disagreement. We simply don’t want to be wrong.

How to counter: I tell my students on the first day of class that they are not entitled to their opinions. (At least not in class!) They are only entitled to what they can support with evidence. 

It’s a bit trickier in the “real world.” Remember that people are often unfamiliar with the basics of critical thinking, so they may not be used to having to support their positions with evidence. Consider explaining why “I’m entitled to my opinion” is fallacious, and the benefits of healthy disagreement. The best approach is probably to ask them why they hold this particular opinion, and why they think they’re “entitled” to it.

To learn more: The Conversation: No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

PERFECT SOLUTION

Written by Bryan Montford; edited by Melanie Trecek-King

Definition and explanation: The Perfect Solution Fallacy assumes a perfect solution exists, and rejects any solution that’s less than ideal despite potential benefits. This fallacy relies on black-and-white thinking, oversimplifying complex situations and creating a false choice between perfection and inaction. However, it’s fallacious because solutions don’t need to be perfect to provide benefits. Not only that, perfect solutions are unrealistic, unattainable, and often unnecessary.

The perfect solution fallacy can pop up in many forms in our daily lives. For example, someone might say they don’t want a relationship unless it’s completely conflict-free. Or, they won’t take music lessons because they’ll never be as good as a professional musician. Rejecting solutions because of unrealistic expectations creates inaction and missed opportunities, and dismisses the benefits of incremental improvements.

How to counter: Inaction won’t result in change or help you achieve your goals, so focus on progress instead. Be wary of arguments that hinge on unattainable standards, as solutions don’t need to be perfect to provide benefits. We can achieve progress even if solutions aren’t perfect.

Red Herring

Definition and explanation : The red herring fallacy is an attempt to distract from the main issue by bringing in irrelevant information.

The name of this fallacy comes from a story in which the smelly fish were used to cover up the scent of hares to distract hunting hounds. While the story may or may not be true, it can be a helpful way to visualize how this fallacy works.

In argumentation, the red herring fallacy is used to divert attention from the main point by changing the subject. It can be difficult to recognize, as the new information might seem tangentially relevant…but in fact it’s a shift towards something that’s easier or safer for the party committing the fallacy. Basically, they lack a good response, so they confuse and distract.

How to counter : The red herring fallacy is very common, so it’s important to be able to recognize it. Pay close attention to responses to monitor if the information that’s offered is relevant to the original issue. This can be more challenging than it seems, and if you’re not careful you could end up miles away from where you intended. 

If you spot a red herring, you could try to redirect the conversation back to the topic at hand. If they continue to offer distractions, gently point out the red herring and why it’s fallacious, keeping in mind that they might not be aware of their misdirections. Finally, there might be a reason the other person wishes to avoid the topic, so you could choose to move on. There might not be a point in continuing with that particular thread or even the conversation in general.

Single cause

Other names: Causal reductionism, complex cause 

Definition and explanation : The single cause fallacy oversimplifies a complex and nuanced issue into one simple cause. It’s human nature to prefer simple answers to complex ones. But oversimplification can lead us astray. If we are to have any chance at solving problems, we need to fully understand them.  

The single cause fallacy can take many forms, from assigning blame for a problem or giving credit for a solution.   However, it is fallacious because it’s likely that many factors contributed to an outcome. 

How to counter:   Phrases like, “ The reason x happened,” or “ The cause of x is,” are indicators that a single cause fallacy has been committed. However, it’s possible that the single cause fallacy was unintentional, and maybe the other person doesn’t understand the complex nature of the issue. So ask yourself, could there be more to the issue than what is being presented? 

SLippery Slope

Definition and explanation : The slippery slope fallacy argues that an action will lead to a chain of events, resulting in undesirable and often extreme consequences. 

Slippery slope arguments are often used to argue against an issue at hand by diverting attention towards negative and unlikely outcomes. In addition, by presenting the horrible sequence of events as inevitable, the arguer uses appeals to fear or anger to persuade (or manipulate, if it’s done intentionally) without evidence. However, the slippery slope is fallacious because moderate positions don’t necessarily lead to extreme outcomes.

Slippery slope arguments are common in political discourse. They can be quite persuasive, as when our emotions are activated we’re less able to think critically. The good news is that slippery slope arguments are easy to identify and avoid once you learn how they work. 

How to counter : Critical thinking can keep us from going down a slippery slope. To identify a slippery slope fallacy, ask yourself how likely it is that the action at hand will lead to the outcome(s) presented. (Keeping tabs on your emotions is also a useful strategy.) 

Once identified, consider pointing out the fallacy to your opponent, and ask them to justify their conclusion by providing evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, after all.

Definition and explanation : A straw man argument misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to dismiss. The straw man can take many forms, but it often involves distorting, exaggerating, oversimplifying, or taking parts out of context, and  can be quite effective if you’re not paying attention. By building a straw version of the original argument they can more easily knock it down and claim victory. However, it is fallacious because they are attacking a position their opponent doesn’t hold. 

Anti-science arguments often employ straw man fallacies, as it’s much easier to “defeat” strongly supported scientific conclusions when those conclusions are misrepresented.

How to counter: First, consider the possibility that the straw man argument was unintentional, and that the other person doesn’t understand the original argument. Sometimes, however, the straw man is a purposeful attempt to persuade others through deception. Either way, point out the use of the straw man by explaining how their version differs from your original position.

Resources to Learn More

Logically Fallacious Your Logical Fallacy Is Effectiviology: Logical Fallacies: What they are and how to counter them Campus Explorer: 20 Types of Logical Fallacies and Examples

44 thoughts on “Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies”

I love ththis kind of analytical explanations and I’m looking forward to more.

Thanks for the compliment, and you’re welcome!

Simplified and very useful article.

Thanks for the kind words. That’s exactly what I was going for. 🙂

Thank you…

I think it would be good to list potential exceptions to these fallacies. Here are a few examples:

Slippery slope – I think there are plenty of occasions where people are quite right to be concerned about one thing leading to another, and there have been examples of it, such as dictators rising to power

Anecdotal – if you’re simply trying to prove that something exists or is possible, rather than common or likely, then your own experience is sufficient proof of that

Appeal to tradition – if arguing against the idea of change for the sake of change, rather than change per se, then I don’t think there’s a great deal wrong with it. Essentially it’s the ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach

You’re not wrong: Exceptions would be good additions. In my attempt at keeping things brief I opted to (mostly) leave them out.

Thanks Melanie

The person that wants you to include “exceptions” may have missed out on understanding fallacies of logic. To say, for example, that you are concerned that a bad person will rise to power, or that you personally experienced something are not exceptions AND they are not acts of fallacious thinking.

I think he may be more concerned with these exceptions being labeled as logical fallacies when they might not be.

I can never remember the correct term for the tactic being used when an agitated conversation goes bad. This helps! Thanks!

You’re welcome! 🙂 Melanie

While I don’t necessarily disagree with any of them, the bias in these graphics speak loudly.

Could you explain more? I try to point out fallacies, especially those used to deny science (or reality) or justify pseudoscience, wherever I see them.

Excellent stuff!

This may be another fallacy type: Claiming, “I can always tell when someone is lying!” It correlates with ‘clairvoyance’ type fallacies, though not sure what category.

I would love to use an interactive quiz-type method to practice and hone my critical thinking skills and speed up my fallacy-type identification process! Any recommendations?

Yes! The game Cranky Uncle is a wonderful way to learn and practice recognizing fallacies. It’s specifically focused on the techniques of science denial, but fallacies are fallacies!

It’s also free 🙂 Just go to http://www.CrankyUncle.com and have fun!

Thanks for the comment Melanie

Great post, thanks! I especially like the modern, relevant examples in the cartoons. I have been a practicing scientist for 25 years and I learned things here. Once you recognize these fallacies you see them everywhere (confirmation bias? kidding…). The more I think about it, logic and critical thinking should be incorporated in school curricula starting in early grade school. I very much doubt we’d be in the awful position we find ourselves in now as a society if critical thinking was a 4th pillar of education (in addition to the 3 Rs).

Thanks for the kind words. And I couldn’t agree with you more about teaching critical thinking.

Best Melanie

Why do you need critical thinking when all you have to do is look up what the “experts” tell us to think?

An important component of critical thinking is intellectual humility. Since none of us can possibly know everything, knowing where to find reliable knowledge is essential. Experts, by definition, have the skills and knowledge to understand their area of expertise. If experts all generally agree — ie they have reached a consensus — their conclusion is the most reliable we have at the moment. Not trusting experts, or thinking we can do better than an expert consensus, is a great way to be misled.

Thanks for your comment. Melanie

I love this article so much! One of the best I’ve seen so far. Great and fun graphics. Clear and simplified explanations. Just bookmarked this page! :))))

Thanks so much for the kind words! Do come back to the site to check for new material. 🙂 Melanie

This is nicely done. Sharing it with my kids and grandkids. Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words! Melanie

This would be a lot better if the examples chosen didn’t betray a political bias to one one side.

I don’t disagree with you, I could stand to have more examples from the ideological left. I’m open to suggestions.

Thanks for the comment. Melanie

Is there a place to find actual example in media, YouTube channels or podcasts?

Hi! Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure I’m fully understanding your question, but logical fallacies are ubiquitous. Once you can see them, you can’t “unsee” them.

Brilliant work!

Thanks! 🙂 Melanie

Whoa, great article! Very in depth and I love that responding with kindness is always the first step

Thanks for the kind words! 🙂 Melanie

I agree with Joan, that’s not how fallacies work lol

Pingback: Fallacy / unfair tactic quick guide – Sgt Scholar

Pingback: GTU Globalization's Impact on Developing Economies Essay - Writer Bay

Pingback: GIT The Current Trend in Globalization: Advancing, Stalling, or Retreating Essay - Writer Bay

Pingback: Georgia tech ChatGPT Essay Exercise - Peakassignments.com

Pingback: Top 10 Logical Fallacies We Use Every Day (and How to Spot Them) – The Drunken Skeptic

Pingback: Georgia tech ChatGPT Essay Exercise - quillstudy

Pingback: Anti-LGBTQ+ adults could be making kids more hateful. One crucial antidote could stop this. – LGBTQ Pride Talk

Pingback: Anti-LGBTQ+ adults could be making kids more hateful. One crucial antidote could stop this. – NOTSTRAIGHT News

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Arguing about gun violence is pointless. We must step back and see each other's humanity.

We don't have to agree, but taking a step back can lead us forward..

On the evening of June 2, six people were shot in the Pleasure Ridge Park neighborhood while attending a party. At the time of this writing, their injuries are, thankfully, not critical, yet this should not minimize the gravity of this increasingly common scenario. The people of Louisville are becoming conditioned to hearing about violence in our beloved city and feel powerless to understand the steps necessary to enact change, so we shake our heads, say, “that’s a shame!” and go back to business as usual, hoping that the next victim is not someone close to us. There is a severe apathy for the value of human life, which has made it possible for perpetrators of violence to allow their temporary emotional state to result in permanent, irreversible consequences.

When faced with such atrocities, the knee-jerk response is to start assigning blame, which Brené Brown defines as “ the discharge of pain and discomfort .” It is seductive to hear about gun violence and to simplify the problem as a lack of gun control. This will inevitably spark debates between advocates of the Second Amendment and people who believe that reducing access to firearms will decrease gun violence. Despite how often these issues arise and this cycle repeats, it is human nature to choose a side, argue against the opposition and defend the virtues of the vantage point that aligns best with your values. We continue these fruitless arguments until the news cycle ages, the next distraction arises and nothing is resolved. This is where the actual problem lies.

When will Louisville gun violence end? Without sensible gun laws, it won't.

Narrow thinking limits our perspectives, progress

Even without knowing all of the details that led to six people being shot, most of us can assume that the person who pulled the trigger was in the wrong. Of course, our judicial system affords us all the right to due process, and we are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the human mind operates in such a state of duality that our black-and-white thinking makes it difficult to consider areas of gray. To be clear, this is not condoning, justifying or excusing the actions that took place this past Saturday evening. The point is that our minds all operate in a level of prejudice that makes us consider people as right, wrong, good or bad. We consider our beliefs and join the side that most agreeably supports our perspectives and silo ourselves within.

My dad had a wonderful laugh. We didn't have to lose him to gun violence.

We are each the main characters in our story. Most people view themselves as "the good guy," meaning those who oppose us must inherently support a “bad” ideology. Our desire to be pure and just means seeing others as “less than.” We align ourselves with like-minded individuals and become tribalized within a belief system that we defend so much that we disregard the humanity of those we disagree with. When we disregard other people’s humanity, we see them as less than human. When we see people as subhuman, the value of their life is diminished. When we struggle to see the value in all lives, we develop apathy for the value in human life, and people die.

This is a slippery slope. The only way to avoid falling off the edge is to be honest about where you stand. Taking a step back doesn’t mean agreeing with others’ differences. It just requires us to appreciate their humanity and right to see things through a different lens.

Cowann D. Owens, LCSW, is a mental health therapist, author of "Cooking Up Counseling: A Recipe for Peace in Unsavory Times" and doctor of social work student at the University of Louisville, anticipated class of May 2025

How ‘Bad Actor’ Documentary Unpacked a Notorious Hollywood Ponzi Scheme While Pulling Off Its Own Deception

By Rebecca Rubin

Rebecca Rubin

Senior Film and Media Reporter

• How ‘Bad Actor’ Documentary Unpacked a Notorious Hollywood Ponzi Scheme While Pulling Off Its Own Deception 7 hours ago
• DDA Hires Two Executives, Launches New York Office 1 day ago
• New ‘Hunger Games’ Prequel Movie, Based on Suzanne Collins’ Next Novel, Set for 2026 1 day ago

SPOILER WARNING:  This story contains plot details from “ Bad Actor : A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme,” which premiered Thursday at Tribeca Festival .

Just how easy is it to get duped? 

Related Stories

Virtual production market grows as average stage size contracts, australian tv commissioning by streamers plummets, says lobby group, as producers await government intervention, popular on variety.

Though Jensen introduces herself as the filmmaker to everyone she encounters in the documentary, it’s revealed in the final moments of “Bad Actor” that Jensen is just an actor who is playing a director. Documentarian David Darg, whose credits include the Oscar-nominated short “Body Team 12,” was actually the one behind the camera.

“I knew it would be very unlikely that we’d get access to Zach Avery,” Darg says during a joint Zoom interview with Jensen. “So I started thinking about creating a film that was an act of deception; how we might dupe our audience so that we could show how easy it is to be fooled.”

So, Jensen has been pretending on and off-screen for months that she helmed a documentary for Neon that’s now in competition at Tribeca. To blend the lines of fiction and reality, she’s been posting about the project on Instagram , where her friend, Oscar nominee Lily Gladstone, is one of many who have commented to offer Jensen congratulations on her directorial debut.

It also meant that Darg couldn’t tell most people what he’d been working on — nor could he have his name attached to the movie prior to its release. That kind of humility is probably alien to someone like Zach Avery. “I’ve had to let a bit of my director pride fall aside for the experiment,” he says. “But the deception hasn’t run that deep. Fortunately, family and friends knew what I was up to.”

Horwitz, 37, declined to be interviewed for “Bad Actor,” not that this was surprising to Darg. “If I was being prosecuted,” the director cracks, “I would never speak to a documentarian.”

Horwitz was arrested in 2021 for operating a Ponzi scheme that raised as much as $650 million and was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in federal prison. He told investors that he would acquire international film rights and then license them to platforms like Netflix and HBO. But the whole business was fake; Horwitz forged documents and fabricated email and text message exchanges with executives to keep up the scam. He then used the money from victims to repay earlier investors and buy a $6 million Los Angeles, luxury cars and travel by private jet, according to prosecutors.

“For a Ponzi scheme to be successful, the investment should be slightly confusing to the investor,” Darg says. “It worked to Zach’s benefit that he wasn’t preying on people in Hollywood. A lot of his investors came from the heartland, from his hometown, who bought into the glam of Hollywood. I barely understood what the actual scheme was because it was quite complex.”

For research, Darg and Jensen devoured articles in the press and then hit the road to visit Horwitz’s birthplace in Indiana, where they interviewed his classmates and professors, as well as Chicago and Los Angeles, where he lived with his wife at various points. That’s where the filmmakers started to uncover inconsistencies in Zach Avery’s self-described rags-to-riches story. For example, Horwitz told a podcast interviewer that an injury prevented him from playing football at Indiana University. He did tear his A.C.L., but it was playing intramural sports.

“We started to unpack so much of his story that actually wasn’t true,” Darg says. “He would say something in the media, and then we would realize it was a movie quote. It was apparent that almost everything in this guy’s life was a lie.”

Pretending to be the director, Jensen says, helped her get in the head of someone trying to pull off a con. “The more victims we spoke to, the more I realized that if you present yourself a certain way — as someone you aren’t but aspire to be — you can be convincing to people.”

One challenge for Darg was figuring out how much to feature Jensen in “Bad Actor.” The real director wanted to show his avatar as often as possible without revealing the ulterior motive for having her in the film.

The duo had tricks to keep up the illusion while ensuring that Darg could offer notes while filming.

“We went to the FBI headquarters, and I was already nervous because we had to get background checks,” Jensen says. “David was behind the camera. So my way of saying, ‘Do you have any adjustments for me in the next take?; was [How does it look?[ And he’d say either, ‘It looks great’ or ‘Scoot over a little and slow down.’ He was giving a lot of direction. But no one would have clocked it, like, ‘Hey, who’s in charge here?’ It felt collaborative.”

Despite the film’s deceptive nature, Jensen was heartened to learn that humans instinctively want to trust each other. But she cautions people against thinking with their wallets. “Do your diligence. Be careful,” she warns. “If something doesn’t seem right, trust yourself.”

Darg offers another life lesson. “We had a recurring joke on set that you can never trust an actor,” he says. “I don’t believe that. But if someone who is a professional liar by trade is asking you to invest in a dubious company, maybe ask more questions.”

More from Variety

‘desert of namibia’ review: a meandering chronicle of a listless japanese zoomer, netflix, roku accelerate streaming momentum in sports rights deals, arooj aftab follows grammy-winning ‘vulture prince’ with the haunting, gorgeous ‘night reign’: album review, diana ross, eminem, jack white and many more light up detroit’s ‘concert from michigan central’, ai could contribute to virtual production sector growth, ‘being maria’ review: a poignant dive into the turbulent life of actor maria schneider, more from our brands, from taylor swift to the beatles, here’s where to buy the most popular vinyl records online, this revamped robert byrd-designed home in l.a. can be yours for $3.5 million, nba finals off to a tepid tv start as celtics clobber mavs in opener, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, bridgerton stylist details everything that went into queen charlotte’s showstopping season 3 wig, verify it's you, please log in.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.2: Slippery Slope Fallacies

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 205048

• Matthew Van Cleave
• Lansing Community College

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Slippery slope fallacies depend on the concept of vagueness . When a concept or claim is vague, it means that we don’t know precisely what claim is being made, or what the boundaries of the concept are. The classic example used to illustrate vagueness is the “ sorites paradox .” The term “sorites” is the Greek term for “heap” and the paradox comes from ancient Greek philosophy. Here is the paradox. I will give you two claims that each sound very plausible, but in fact lead to a paradox. Here are the two claims:

• One grain of sand is not a heap of sand.
• If I start with something that is not a heap of sand, then adding one grain of sand to that will not create a heap of sand.

For example, two grains of sand is not a heap, thus (by the second claim) neither is three grains of sand. But since three grains of sand is not a heap then (by the second claim again) neither is four grains of sand. You can probably see where this is going. By continuing to add one grain of sand over and over, I will eventually end up with something that is clearly a heap of sand, but that won’t be counted as a heap of sand if we accept both claims 1 and 2 above.

Philosophers continue to argue and debate about how to resolve the sorites paradox, but the point for us is just to illustrate the concept of vagueness. The concept “heap” is a vague concept in this example. But so are so many other concepts, such a color concepts (red, yellow, green, etc.), moral concepts (right, wrong, good, bad), and just about any other concept you can think of. The one domain that seems to be unaffected by vagueness is mathematical and logical concepts. There are two fallacies related to vagueness: the causal slippery slope and the conceptual slippery slope. We’ll cover the conceptual slippery slope first since it relates most closely to the concept of vagueness I’ve explained above.

Conceptual Slippery Slope

It may be true that there is no essential difference between 499 grains of sand and 500 grains of sand. But even if that is so, it doesn’t follow that there is no difference between 1 grain of sand and 5 billion grains of sand. In general, just because we cannot draw a distinction between A and B, and we cannot draw a distinction between B and C, it doesn’t mean we cannot draw a distinction between A and C. Here is an example of a conceptual slippery slope fallacy.

It is illegal for anyone under 21 to drink alcohol. But there is no difference between someone who is 21 and someone who is 20 years 11 months old. So there is nothing wrong with someone who is 20 years and 11 months old drinking. But since there is no real distinction between being one month older and one month younger, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with drinking at any age. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with allowing a 10 year old to drink alcohol.

Imagine the life of an individual in stages of 1 month intervals. Even if it is true that there is no distinction in kind between any one of those stages, it doesn’t follow that there isn’t a distinction to be drawn at the extremes of either end. Clearly there is a difference between a 5 year old and a 25 year old—a distinction in kind that is relevant to whether they should be allowed to drink alcohol. The conceptual slippery slope fallacy assumes that because we cannot draw a distinction between adjacent stages, we cannot draw a distinction at all between any stages. One clear way of illustrating this is with color. Think of a color spectrum from purple to red to orange to yellow to green to blue. Each color grades into the next without there being any distinguishable boundaries between the colors—a continuous spectrum. Even if it is true that for any two adjacent hues on the color wheel, we cannot distinguish between the two, it doesn’t follow from this that there is no distinction to be drawn between any two portions of the color wheel, because then we’d be committed to saying that there is no distinguishable difference between purple and yellow! The example of the color spectrum illustrates the general point that just because the boundaries between very similar things on a spectrum are vague, it doesn’t follow that there are no differences between any two things on that spectrum.

Whether or not one will identify an argument as committing a conceptual slippery slope fallacy, depends on the other things one believes about the world. Thus, whether or not a conceptual slippery slope fallacy has been committed will often be a matter of some debate. It will itself be vague. Here is a good example that illustrates this point.

People are found not guilty by reason of insanity when they cannot avoid breaking the law. But people who are brought up in certain deprived social circumstances are not much more able than the legally insane to avoid breaking the law. So we should not find such individuals guilty any more than those who are legally insane.

Whether there is conceptual slippery slope fallacy here depends on what you think about a host of other things, including individual responsibility, free will, the psychological and social effects of deprived social circumstances such as poverty, lack of opportunity, abuse, etc. Some people may think that there are big differences between those who are legally insane and those who grow up in deprived social circumstances. Others may not think the differences are so great. The issues here are subtle, sensitive, and complex, which is why it is difficult to determine whether there is any fallacy here or not. If the differences between those who are insane and those who are the product of deprived social circumstances turn out to be like the differences between one shade of yellow and an adjacent shade of yellow, then there is no fallacy here. But if the differences turn out to be analogous to those between yellow and green (i.e., with many distinguishable stages of difference between) then there would indeed be a conceptual slippery slope fallacy here. The difficulty of distinguishing instances of the conceptual slippery slope fallacy, and the fact that distinguishing it requires us to draw on our knowledge about the world, shows that the conceptual slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy.

Causal slippery slope fallacy

The causal slippery slope fallacy is committed when one event is said to lead to some other (usually disastrous) event via a chain of intermediary events. If you have ever seen Direct TV’s “get rid of cable” commercials, you will know exactly what I’m talking about. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about you should Google it right now and find out. They’re quite funny.) Here is an example of a causal slippery slope fallacy (it is adapted from one of the Direct TV commercials):

If you use cable, your cable will probably go on the fritz. If your cable is on the fritz, you will probably get frustrated. When you get frustrated you will probably hit the table. When you hit the table, your young daughter will probably imitate you. When your daughter imitates you, she will probably get thrown out of school. When she gets thrown out of school, she will probably meet undesirables. When she meets undesirables, she will probably marry undesirables. When she marries undesirables, you will probably have a grandson with a dog collar. Therefore, if you use cable, you will probably have a grandson with dog collar.

This example is silly and absurd, yes. But it illustrates the causal slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slope fallacies are always made up of a series of conjunctions of probabilistic conditional statements that link the first event to the last event. A causal slippery slope fallacy is committed when one assumes that just because each individual conditional statement is probable, the conditional that links the first event to the last event is also probable. Even if we grant that each “link” in the chain is individually probable, it doesn’t follow that the whole chain (or the conditional that links the first event to the last event) is probable. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, we assign probabilities to each “link” or conditional statement, like this. (I have italicized the consequents of the conditionals and assigned high conditional probabilities to them. The high probability is for the sake of the argument; I don’t actually think these things are as probable as I’ve assumed here.)

If you use cable, then your cable will probably go on the fritz (.9) If your cable is on the fritz, then you will probably get angry (.9) If you get angry, then you will probably hit the table (.9) If you hit the table, your daughter will probably imitate you (.8) If your daughter imitates you, she will probably be kicked out of school (.8) If she is kicked out of school, she will probably meet undesirables (.9) If she meets undesirables, she will probably marry undesirables (.8) If she marries undesirables, you will probably have a grandson with a dog collar (.8)

However, even if we grant the probabilities of each link in the chain is high (80-90% probable), the conclusion doesn’t even reach a probability higher than chance. Recall that in order to figure the probability of a conjunction, we must multiply the probability of each conjunct:

(.9) × (.9) × (.9) × (.8) × (.8) × (.9) × (.8) × (.8) = .27

That means the probability of the conclusion (i.e., that if you use cable, you will have a grandson with a dog collar) is only 27%, despite the fact that each conditional has a relatively high probability! The causal slippery slope fallacy is actually a formal probabilistic fallacy and so could have been discussed in chapter 3 with the other formal probabilistic fallacies. What makes it a formal rather than informal fallacy is that we can identify it without even having to know what the sentences of the argument mean. I could just have easily written out a nonsense argument comprised of series of probabilistic conditional statements. But I would still have been able to identify the causal slippery slope fallacy because I would have seen that there was a series of probabilistic conditional statements leading to a claim that the conclusion of the series was also probable. That is enough to tell me that there is a causal slippery slope fallacy, even if I don’t really understand the meanings of the conditional statements.

It is helpful to contrast the causal slippery slope fallacy with the valid form of inference, hypothetical syllogism. Recall that a hypothetical syllogism has the following kind of form:

A ⊃ B B ⊃ C C ⊃ D D ⊃ E ∴ A ⊃ E

The only difference between this and the causal slippery slope fallacy is that whereas in the hypothetical syllogism, the link between each component is certain, in a causal slippery slope fallacy, the link between each event is probabilistic. It is the fact that each link is probabilistic that accounts for the fallacy. One way of putting this is point is that probability is not transitive. Just because A makes B probable and B makes C probable and C makes X probable, it doesn’t follow that A makes X probable. In contrast, when the links are certain rather than probable, then if A always leads to B and B always leads to C and C always leads to X, then it has to be the case that A always leads to X.

Climate crisis puts Australia's ski industry on slippery slope, but not all hope is lost

A ustralia's ski industry is at risk of major disruptions and shorter seasons if the current level of climate pollution continues, according to new modeling from Protect Our Winters Australia (POW) and The Australian National University (ANU).

The report found the average ski season across all resorts in Australia will be 44 days shorter by 2050 under a mid-greenhouse gas emissions scenario and 55 days shorter under a high-emissions scenario.

It also shows that despite a dramatic decline in snowfall under mid- and high-emissions scenarios, the Australian snow industry would fare significantly better if decisive action is taken to reduce climate pollution in line with a low-emissions scenario this decade.

Under a low-emissions scenario, the ski season would be 28 days shorter by 2050, before starting to improve by 2080 if emissions are kept down.

The researchers argue unless urgent climate action is taken, some ski resorts are at risk of closing their doors for good.

Report co-author and ANU researcher Ruby Olsson said in addition to rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and adopting renewable energy systems like wind and solar, support measures are needed to help ski resorts stand resilient in the face of climate change and help the communities that depend on the Australian Alps.

"We need to support vulnerable resorts to diversify into year-round tourism. This could include a coordinated approach between state governments, assisted by the Australian Alps Liaison Committee or Australian Alps Ministerial Council, to support those ski resorts that are most at risk," she said.

"The more we can limit the impacts of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the less expensive adaptation by businesses, communities, and the environment will be and the more options we will have.

"Waiting to act increases the risk of resort closure or species extinction. Resort closures and extinctions are difficult or impossible to undo. So, this decade is critical in terms of taking urgent climate action."

Protect Our Winters Australia Director and Lead Advocate Sam Quirke said, "The ski season last year was tough, with minimal snowfall and some resorts having to shut their doors early. This report shows that we'll see that happening more and more frequently, as ski seasons become more erratic and harder to predict due to global warming, until we do something about it."

The researchers argue the health of the Australian Alps is critical to Australia's agricultural needs and water security.

According to the report, snow-melt water runoff provides an average of 9,600 gigalitres of water per year into the Murray-Darling Basin, which is around 29% of the Basin's total annual flows. At the same time, climate change will directly reduce rainfall in the Australian Alps by 5% to 24% by 2050 and indirectly reduce catchment yield through ecological changes.

Co-author Professor Adrienne Nicotra from ANU, who is also Director of the Australian Mountain Research Facility, said climate change is already having a significant impact on the native animals and plants that call the Australian Alps home.

"As well as keeping fossil fuels in the ground to prevent devastating climate change, we need investment that brings together mountain scientists, policy makers, resort owners and Alpine communities to map out a plan that sees them adapt," Professor Nicotra said.

More information: Our Changing Snowscapes Report: protectourwinters.org.au/

Provided by Australian National University

Louisiana bill proposes surgical castration for child sex offenders

If the bill is passed, courts could order surgical castrations, which are more invasive than chemical ones. Rights advocates called it inhumane and ineffective.

Key takeaways

Summary is AI-generated, newsroom-reviewed.

• Lawmakers approve measure for cases against victims under 13; still needs governor’s signature.
• State already allows chemical castration; critics call move potentially cruel, unconstitutional.
• Few states, countries have similar laws; efficacy of physical castration debated.

Did our AI help? Share your thoughts.

Louisiana lawmakers on Monday approved a bill that would expand judges’ powers to sentence people convicted of certain sex crimes against children to physical castration.

If passed into law, the bill would allow judges to order a surgical castration, which is more invasive than the chemical methods outlined in a 2008 law . Surgical castration orders would be allowed in cases involving victims under age 13.

Chemical castrations involve the administration of hormonal drugs that lower sexual performance and libido, while surgical or physical castrations involve removing testes or ovaries to stop the production of sex hormones. Chemical castrations, unlike physical methods, are generally impermanent and are already allowed in Louisiana for sexual crimes against children such as rape, sexual battery and molestation.

The bill would still need to be signed into law by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R). It requires that a court-appointed medical expert agree that the individual is fit for a surgical procedure and that it be performed while they are still in detention.

If a person refuses the procedure, they may face charges that carry up to five years in prison.

“We have a responsibility and a duty as it relates to the most vulnerable among us … I don’t feel that our kids are safe,” state Sen. Regina Ashford Barrow (D), the bill’s sponsor, said during a hearing last month. Barrow acknowledged that her previous attempts to introduce the bill faced pushback, particularly due to Louisiana’s high number of wrongful convictions . However, she said that she is concerned about “repeat offenders” and emphasized that victims’ lives are “changed forever” by sexual violence.

Bruce Reilly, a community organizer who advocates for formerly incarcerated people, argued before the committee that surgical methods run the risk of violating constitutional rights and that Louisiana has no need for additional methods of castration.

“Our concern is that we are going into the physical realm of mutilating somebody’s body, and it’s a slippery slope about what is cruel and unusual punishment,” he said to the state legislature.

“There’s no conclusive proof that castration actually eliminates that problem in someone’s mind,” he added. “ … It’s not necessarily having an impact on the long-term criminal proclivities of the person.”

In a statement posted online , the Restorative Action Alliance called the bill “state-sanctioned eugenics” and “an affront to bodily autonomy” that would violate the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws called the bill “at best, ineffective and, at worst, barbaric.”

A handful of U.S. states — including California , Texas and Florida — permit the castration of people convicted of sexual offenses against children, though some only allow chemical castration, while others offer physical castration as an elective option. Countries such as South Korea and Poland allow chemical castration for some sex offenders, but others have discontinued the practice.

John McMillan, a professor of bioethics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, said that the United States stands out on the world stage for allowing castration orders in some states. Research on the effects of physical castration of sexual crime recidivism is limited, he added, partly because “it has only happened in a small number of countries.”

A few studies have suggested that physical castration can help offenders who choose it as a therapeutic option, but “the evidence base, even when it’s clearly what somebody wants, is pretty weak,” he said.

“What reasons does the court have for thinking that physical castration is in fact going to work? You may end up just removing parts of people’s bodies,” McMillan said. “Think of it as removing someone’s hand because they’re a thief. It’s tempting to think that it has more to do with the symbolic purpose of punishment and doing something punitive rather than something that’s going to eliminate the offending in the future.”