Reading the short explanation for SlipperySlope on FallaciousArgument ('A leads to A^n'), let me think, that many arguments fail, because of the following pattern:
This reasoning is definitely not sound, if the dependency between A and B is not linear (assuming, that the goodness of A and B is the same).
That's an ends justifying the means problem... which is always a problem of economy. There is, in reality, no way to justify any means except by its ends, but doing so requires analysis of cost of means (including all 'side-effects') vs. utility of ends and a comparative analysis of alternative approaches. Your above statements don't even consider alternative approaches: More C leads to more B, therefore more C is good... but is C or A better?
In some cases, a significant amount of A may lead to insignificant changes to B in the beginning, but additional amounts of A may lead to much more B later (exponential growth; "priming the pump", "tipping point", etc.).
In other cases, more A may lead to more B in the beginning, but additional amounts of A may lead to smaller and eventually insignificant amounts of B (saturation).
This can be expression mathematically e.g. like
B = A^r (direct polynomial dependency, if r>>1 a little bit A make much B, reverse if r<<1)or
B = A+p^A (late, but sudden increase e.g. if p<<1)or
B' = A'^r (dependency in the derivative)That was my image of SlipperySlope at first: Not slope, that lets one fall deep down, but uneven slope which lets one stumble.
Examples:
A little of A leads to a very few of B, therefore more of A leads to a little bit more of B.
Which is used in the argument as follows:
But anyway, I do not seem to be able formulate my thoughts about this concept clear enough. Let me think about it some more time.
There's definitely a fallacy around assuming that because a little of A causes some increase in B, then more A will result in more B. I would argue that performance related pay is one of these. Also see SelfSealingBelief.
See also: