A
slippery slope argument (
SSA), in
logic,
critical thinking, political
rhetoric, and
caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a
chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in
unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the
warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of
fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience, although, differentiation is necessary, since, in other cases, it might be demonstrable that the small step as likely does lead to an effect.
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with
continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense it constitutes an
informal fallacy. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome. Other idioms for the slippery slope argument are the
thin end/edge of the wedge, the
camel's nose in the tent, or
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.