Explanation:
Logical fallacy is making invalid conclusions, or, simply put, a flawed argument.
One of such fallacies is a "slippery slope" fallacy, which basically means, making a claim about an event that will start a streak of events ending in, most often, an awful outcome.
In reality, there is no proof, logical connection or reason to believe that this chain of events will really happen, but by assuming so, the person making the fallacy, is giving the counterargument for the original action.
Basically, if A happens, then B will happen. If B happens then C will happen. If C happens then D will happen. D is an awful outcome. So, if we don't want D to happen, then A shouldn't too.
The fallacy in this reasoning is that B isn't necessarily consequence of A, C isn't necessarily consequence of B etc. So claiming that chain of events occurring is logically invalid.
Answer and Explanation:
Both articles use sequences that explain how a reality is set up in our universe. On the one hand, "Watching Earth from Space" shows a sequence about the results of using the satellite in our lives and how it creates a sequence of praise and criticism. In this case, the sequences presented in this article are the result, which arise through a reality, the satalites.
On the other hand, the article "The Life of a Hurricane." shows a sequence of steps for the formation of the hurricane, that is, while the first article presents a sequence of results, the second presents a sequence of forming processes.
Except what? Can you put the rest of the question up?
Hi there, you should give some examples so we can answer your question
There is no right answer to choose from.