What does it mean when someone says, "If we allow this, then soon we will have no freedom at all"?

What does it mean when someone says, "If we allow this, then soon we will have no freedom at all"?

• A. Selectively choosing evidence to undermine an argument
• B. Making a slippery slope argument to instill fear
• C. Arguing based on unverified statements
• D. Addressing irrelevant points to sidestep the issue

Answer: (B)

When someone states, "If we allow this, then soon we will have no freedom at all," they are utilizing the slippery slope argument. This rhetorical strategy is designed to create a sense of fear or anxiety by suggesting that a specific action or decision will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences that escalate dramatically. In this case, the speaker is positing that permitting a particular action will lead to a total loss of freedom, which is an extreme outcome that may not necessarily follow from the initial action. By framing the argument in such a way, it appeals to emotions rather than logic, aiming to push the audience toward a particular conclusion without solid evidence to support each step of the predicted progression. This type of argument often avoids engaging with the actual merits of the original action being discussed, instead focusing on the far-reaching implications that could arise if it were to take place.

When someone states, "If we allow this, then soon we will have no freedom at all," they are utilizing the slippery slope argument. This rhetorical strategy is designed to create a sense of fear or anxiety by suggesting that a specific action or decision will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences that escalate dramatically. In this case, the speaker is positing that permitting a particular action will lead to a total loss of freedom, which is an extreme outcome that may not necessarily follow from the initial action.

By framing the argument in such a way, it appeals to emotions rather than logic, aiming to push the audience toward a particular conclusion without solid evidence to support each step of the predicted progression. This type of argument often avoids engaging with the actual merits of the original action being discussed, instead focusing on the far-reaching implications that could arise if it were to take place.