This fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical argument, but uses guesswork for the premises. Many arguments have been based on the slippery slope fallacy. One of the most controversial one is the legalization of marijuana. Opponents of the law say that if we legalize marijuana, then everyone in the world will become addicted to it it’s a gateway drug to more hardcore drugs. By utilizing all of the components of critical thinking, it could be concluded that people realize that not all actions lead to disastrous events. Part of making a decision and the process that comes with it involves taking the information handed and analyzing only that data. For example, in an article by Reuters, “Iran wishes to pursue a full nuclear energy program with peaceful intentions to help with their country's future energy concerns. The United States and its European Allies feel that if they let Iran enrich uranium for this purpose that they will eventually use it to make nuclear weapons” (MSNBC.com). The line of reasoning behind slippery slope is that if we allow them to take this first step of nuclear energy, they will eventually follow through with the produces nuclear …show more content…
The theory is much simpler than people think. It’s when you destroy the credibility of your opponents,”(Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, Walters, 525). This type of fallacy occurs very commonly in political debates. If a candidate cannot find valid reasons to dispute another candidate's claims or ideas then the candidate attacks the person himself, not the issues, which would be an important part of a debate. It is important to mention that not every personal attack is a fallacy. A simple statement attacking a person's character, although not right, is not a fallacy. Ad hominem can play a very important role in the critical thinking process. If critical thinking is not used, people's opinions could be affected negatively by listening to personal attacks on people. If critical thinking is used a person would first identify the real argument at hand. Second, a critical thinker would analyze the discussion and then evaluate the arguments or claims. One would also take out prejudices and personal biases to formulate convincing reasons in support of a conclusion. With all of this information a critical thinker would be able to make a reasonable, intelligent decision about what to believe. Ad hominem is very important in decision making because, if done correctly, it can actually