Slippery Slope: Lost your pen=Death

      Logical Fallacies are errors in reasoning that render an argument to be invalid or unsound. One of which includes slippery slope, it's when one reaches an unjustified conclusion followed by events that must inevitably follow another without any argument. For instance, "You lose your pen" would lead to “Your death”.  A formula that represents the slippery slope: A(Lose your pen), B(Can't take notes), C(Fail test) … → 37(Death). This argument commits slippery slope because it's possible to lose a pen and not die. It's appropriate to say that losing a pen would lead to no notes and then stop there. Slippery slope portrays an extreme conclusion, one that might not happen. In reality, when I lose a pen, I buy another one. The flaw in the slippery slope logic has a weak ground because what it says goes without argument. It's ineffective to argue with slippery slope because it's open to attack in many directions. For example, “Why not borrow a pen? you can copy the notes tomorrow, or you can write with a pencil.” It's possible to do event A without event 37 happening. On the other hand, slippery slope does provide a wide generalization of the outcomes. As well, it can be effective if there's a sample of possible analogies. Personally, I wouldn't use slippery slope because it's a fallacy that frowned upon and laughed at. I believe people can easily laugh it off and won't take it seriously. It's similar to when my mom claims watching tv or listening to music can kill me, I find it hilarious that she can even reach that conclusion. In all, the slippery slope isn't the best fallacy to defend your stance.