In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.

Is slippery slope a valid argument?

They are slippery slope arguments simply because they argue on the basis of a claim that doing one thing will lead to a slippery slide to something else undesirable. But again, if there is good reason to think the causal connection between X and Y will hold, then the slippery slope argument may well be very good.

Why slippery slope is a bad argument?

When it comes to conceptual slippery slopes, a proposed slope is generally fallacious because it ignores the ability to differentiate between two things even if it's possible to transition from one of them to the other using a series of small steps.