READING AND WRITING SKILLS

TYPES OF DISCOURSE

Instruction/s: Read the article “The Basic Slippery Slope Argument” by D. Walton, and give two (2)
examples for each type of discourse: argumentation, description, exposition, and narration. Copy at least
the first 3 sentences from the paragraph and indicate the page where you find your answer. Use the page
number from the paper (ex. pg. 287)

1. Argumentation

Example 1.

pg. 284 - 285

This example compares arguments about the side effects of two drugs. Each of the arguments
is clearly an argument from negative consequences. The example is a good one because it is an
argument that seems quite reasonable. If it is not possible for the patient to stop taking drug A in
midtreatment, and continuing to take it will lead to the death of the patient at some point past
midtreatment, the argument does seem to fit the slippery slope category. Giving the patient advice not
to start taking drug A certainly does seem to be practical counsel given these circumstances.
Unfortunately however, the example is one of those compressed instances of the argument where the
sequence of actions leading from the initial step to the eventual outcome is not explicitly stated
enough for us to grasp its essential features.

Example 2.

pg. 283

So in this instance, the argumentation between the two parties is a stalemate, until the
proponent replies to the respondent by filling in enough gaps in the slippery slope sequence so that the
burden of proof shifts back again to the respondent’s side to present further critical questions or
counterarguments. The hypothesis suggested by such cases is that in many instances of slippery slope
arguments some of the premises of an argument are not stated explicitly, but are tacitly assumed. An
enthymematic argument is an argument that only makes sense if one or more of its components
(premises or conclusions) are inserted, typically using Gricean implicature (Grice, 1975; Macagno
and Walton, 2013). Each case has to be analyzed and the arguments in it classified using the textual
evidence of the case. Here the hypothesis is proposed that it is the presence of the second through the
sixth premises (in the argumentation scheme presented in section 7) that enables us to determine in
any given case whether the argument fits the scheme for the slippery slope argument as well as fitting
the more general scheme of argument from negative consequences.
2. Description

Example 1.

pg. 279

This form of argument is different from the kind of slippery slope argument we are familiar
with in the logic textbooks because it is not about a sequence of actions that leads to some dangerous
outcome where a warning is being offered not to take the first step in the sequence. However, we can
see that there are some similarities. Both forms of argument are about a sequence. In both cases, once
the sequence moves forward and is not stopped, the result is a problematic outcome.

Example 2.

pg. 274
This paper provides an argumentation scheme for a basic slippery slope argument that models
the structure of this type of argument and enables the construction of a definition that represents its
core features. The slippery slope as a type of argument is defined by stating ten requirements that
need to be made for a given argument to fit this category, and showing how the basic scheme is
related to its four subtypes and other closely related types of arguments.

3. Exposition Example
1.

pg. 301 - 302

There are basically three ways to attack an argument in formal argumentation systems such as
ASPIC+ and CAS: you can attack its premises, you can attack the inferential link between premises
and conclusion, or you can attack the conclusion directly by posing a counterargument against it,
making the claim that the conclusion is false, or not acceptable based on the evidence. However, there
are also other ways to attack an argument that someone puts forward as a slippery slope argument. As
shown by the examples above, such an argument may not really be a slippery slope argument, but
maybe better fit some other argumentation scheme such as argument from negative consequences,
without fitting the requirements necessary to make it a genuine slippery slope argument. To attack the
argument in this way, the critic needs to bring forward the argumentation scheme for the slippery
slope argument, and also perhaps explain the necessary characteristics that identify an argument as
fitting the slippery slope category, and show that the given argument fails to meet one or more of
these requirements. This move shifts the burden of proof onto the proponent of the argument to bring
forward more evidence to show that it fits the slippery slope category. Failure to meet these
requirements means that the argument cannot be criticized as a fallacious slippery slope argument.

Example 2.

pg. 305 - 306

 As applied to instances of the slippery slope argument, the procedure has the following steps.
First of all, frame the argument in a context of deliberation in which one agent is giving advice to
another. One of the agents is contemplating taking some particular step, and the other is advising the
first agent not to take that step because it will lead forward by a sequence of actions that will, during a
gray zone, run out of control leading to an outcome that the second agent evaluates as highly negative,
catastrophic or intolerable. Once the argument has been situated in this context of a deliberation, the
next step is to see if it has all of the characteristics of the slippery slope argument. For these purpose
the application of the basic argumentation scheme for the slippery slope type of argument to the
textual data of the given argument is required. Some arguments that are said to be slippery slopes and
that look like a slippery slope may not fit all of the requirements. In particular, it is necessary to
analyze the given argument to find the three key components of it, the gray zone, the sequence and the
drivers.

4. Narration

Example 1.

pg. 282 - 283

On February 3, 2015, Britain became the first country to allow the creation of babies with
genetic material from three persons. Mitochondria, the powerhouses of our cells generate the energy
that our cells need to function properly. About 100 children a year suffer from faults with
mitochondria that are often agonizing and fatal. Mitochondria contains DNA, and therefore
intervention using germline therapy results in genetic changes that will be inherited by the mother’s
children, and all their children, and so forth. The slippery slope argument used against this procedure
is that it will be “the first step on the road to designer babies” (No author given, Oh Baby, The
Economist, February 7, 2015, page 12). The reply made to the slippery slope argument given in the
Economist article states: “[This complaint] is as weak as any other slippery slope argument:
approving one procedure does not mean automatically approving others.” Here we have an instance of
a condensed version of the slippery slope argument arguing against going ahead with this genetic
intervention. And then we have a counterargument claiming that the slippery slope argument is weak
because approving one procedure does not mean automatically approving others.

Example 2.

pg. 295

The argumentation scheme for the precedent slippery slope argument given in (Walton 1992,
155) begins with a premise that the particular case at issue is claimed to be an exception to a rule. The
next premise, called the related cases premise, holds that the case at issue is similar to another case,
which in turn is similar to a sequence of other cases, so that giving a ruling on the original case, a
chain of argumentation will be set up by case to case similarity (argument from analogy). The third
premise says that treating the case at issue as an exception to a rule would be intolerable because it
would move this chain of argumentation forward so that it would ultimately lead to a catastrophic or
intolerable outcome. The conclusion of the argument is that the original case cannot be judged to be
an exception to the rule. This form of argument fits into the basic scheme because it has all the same
characteristics as those matching the premises and conclusion as those specified in the basic scheme.