Slippery Slope Examples

Throughout the film there were several different instances of logical fallacies that included slippery slope, and ad populum. The use of interviews involving slippery slope were noticeable from the onset of the film. It could be seen in Kelly Bolar, Joe Papp, and other interviews. The objective of including stories that used slippery slope and seemed unrealistic was to demonstrate how it could happen to the most unexpected crowd. Furthermore, the use of slippery slope assisted the audience in feeling the importance of lying on lives. The argument was slightly unsteady because they included many examples of overstated lying that does not occur to most people in their lives. Another example of a fallacy used was ad populum. The experiments that

they conducted were mainly at colleges; it was displayed that if a person witnessed someone they associated themselves with, they were more likely to cheat because they assumed that it was standard. They thought that everyone was doing it, and so they were more feasible to lie too.

Moreover, this strengthened the argument because after several experiments on the subject it had been shown that this does occur in the population.
The use of rhetorical strategies, fallacies, and filming techniques presented to the watcher was very strong through the use of so much evidence to back up the claim that states everyone lies. It’s was an effective argument because they had data from around the world, and the idea that everyone has their own “fudge factor” that doesn’t automatically group the audience into one category. Although this was a strong argument it may not have an ramification on some of the population that watched it. Consequently, this may be because they didn’t show enough examples of light lies in someone’s life, and they mostly focused on the aspect of cheating. A strong element this film used was that it did not just base the information gained off America, but across the world. This was beneficial to the film because it eliminates a foreigners claim that the information presented was only demonstrated in America. Because of this the credibility expanded. Another strong element was the fact that they didn’t

generalize every person as a certain type of liar. They used the term “fudge factor” to establish each person’s different limit on lying about what they have cultivated in their lives. This eliminated the possibility of people thinking they didn’t belong in any of the categories because the film never created them in the first place. It could be seen that this technique allowed the audience to have an open mind in terms of their own relationship with falsifying to the film. Although the film did create a strong argument, it did lack the fact that most of the footage shown in the film was based off of lies that stemmed through cheating. It did leave out many different types of lying, and if it did include one, they brushed over the idea. Because of this the audience may have categorized all lying as cheating from the information given by the film. Even though this is a dilemma, it was miniscule in terms of the information presented about the ideas behind lies. The film’s statement that everyone learns to lie, and that people crave it in a way relates to the world in copious ways. This can be detected all over the news with lies in the government, athletes, and everyday people. Take a step back and one can really see how important lying is to our society and how it shapes the economy and children. Sometimes it is for the favorable, and sometimes it is for the worse. It’s up to the generations to come, to determine the limitations of lying and how to handle them in the future.