Single choice · #52
A review board is discussing a pilot program to "allow clients to defer payment by 15 days." Speaker A says: "Once we allow it for one client, all clients will follow suit, cash flow will inevitably collapse, and the proposal must be rejected." Speaker B says: "The payment-term data show that about 60% of clients would use the deferral, cash reserves can cover a two-month delay, and if the deferral exceeds 60 days an early-warning mechanism suspends the policy." Which of the following judgments is correct?
Show answer & explanation
Answer: B
- AA's reasoning is an evidence-based chain of inference, while B's is a slippery slope, because B acknowledges that delays and risks exist.✗ Wrong. Acknowledging a risk while providing probabilities, coverage capacity, and a suspension mechanism is precisely the hallmark of evidence-based inference; treating 'acknowledging risk' as a marker of the slippery slope confuses two entirely different modes of argument—assessing risk versus asserting catastrophe.
- BB's reasoning is an evidence-based chain of inference, while A's is a slippery slope: B supplies a probability, data, and a blocking mechanism for each link, while A uses 'inevitably' to weld 'one client defers' directly to 'cash flow collapse.'✓ Correct. The distinguishing standard is whether each link is supported and whether probabilities and conditions are given: B supplies, link by link, the usage rate, the reserve coverage, and the 60-day early-warning suspension rule, making the chain testable; A never argues why 'one client defers → all clients defer' must necessarily occur.
- CBoth are evidence-based chains of inference, because the copycat behavior A describes among clients does exist in reality.✗ Wrong. 'Could happen in reality' is not the same as 'must happen'; A provides no probability or mechanism and asserts an inevitable outcome from mere possibility. Treating possibility as inevitability is exactly the core misunderstanding behind the slippery slope.
- DThe quality of the two arguments cannot be compared, because B has not calculated a specific loss amount either.✗ Wrong. Dismissing an entire line of reasoning because one specific figure is missing confuses 'an incomplete argument' with 'no argument'; B has already given a probability, coverage capacity, and a blocking rule—enough to distinguish it from A's zero-evidence chain.
Explanation:The standard for distinguishing a slippery slope from an evidence-based chain of inference lies not in whether the conclusion is frightening, but in whether each link is supported: B gives the usage rate (about 60%), the coverage capacity (two months of reserves), and a blocking mechanism (an alert and policy suspension beyond 60 days), so every link is testable and correctable; A merely uses 'once… all… inevitably…' to weld the first step to a catastrophic outcome, with zero argumentation for the intermediate links. The first option treats acknowledging risk as a marker of the slippery slope; the option claiming both arguments are sound treats 'possible in reality' as 'inevitable'; the option saying they cannot be compared dismisses all of B's evidence because one specific figure is missing. The correct way to respond to A is precisely to press the question: why must the first step necessarily lead to the second?