GRADUALISM and DIRECTION

The gradual strategy is a progressive approach, also known as a step-by-step or gradual process. It is the opposite of the « one-shot strategy, » in which everything is decided in one go. This process can be manipulative when used to conceal an ultimate negative goal by revealing it gradually from an innocuous initial goal.
The slippery slope argument is used to counter the gradual strategy. It is employed when there is suspicion that a stated goal is only the initial phase of a hidden gradual process.

1. The Stages Device as a General Strategy of Action

This process is implemented when the overall goal is deemed not to be directly unattainable. It is then divided into smaller, more easily attainable goals.
This division corresponds to a to a general strategy of action that is not necessarily manipulative. Experienced explorers explain that when you are lost in the desert and dying of thirst while trying to reach a distant oasis, your ultimate goal, you could set your sights on reaching the next dune, and then the next cactus, and so on, until you finally reach the oasis.
A more relevant example to everyday life is how to carry a heavy weight. If I cannot carry this one-hundred-pound object, I take it apart, when possible, and carry each part separately.
This process of breaking down a global goal into an organized series of small, achievable goals is currently applied to the learning process: for example, one first learns to drive on a normal road, before learning to drive on an icy road.
In these cases, the actor keeps the final goal in mind, and determines and organizes the partial goals in relation to it.

2. The gradual strategy

The gradual process can be used not as a a convenient tool, but as a deliberately opaque, and manipulative strategy,

It is often better not to confront the interlocutor with the entire distance between the current situation and the ultimate goal. Instead, this distance is divided into sections with stopping points indicating partial goals. These partial goals are less likely to provoke strong opposition. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).

Arguing with the Joneses – The step-by-step strategy, in this second sense, is commonly referred to in sales interaction as the priming strategy:

The newlyweds Jones want to buy an apartment. The real estate agent suggests a modest, perfectly adequate two-bedroom apartment, and they agree to buy it. Now that the agent has his foot in the door, he observes that a baby is on the way; so they really need a three-bedroom apartment is necessary. The Joneses change their minds and agree to buy one. However, the agent notices that Mrs. Jones is starting a business, and needs a private office. Therefore, they need a four-bedroom apartment, and so on.

In arguing with the Lord to persuade Him to withhold His wrath against Sodom, Abraham uses such a priming strategy and step-by-step process-a bit manipulative, but praiseworthy nonetheless. The argument is not from the few to the many but from the few to the very few:

[…] Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached Him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
Once again Abraham spoke to Him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
Then Abraham said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Genesis 18:22-33 New International Version.[1]

Unfortunately, the Lord will not find ten righteous men in Sodom.

3. Argument of Direction, or Slippery Slope Argument

The term argument of direction is an alternative name for the slippery slope argument. It is used to prevent the use of a gradualist strategy:

“[it] consists, essentially, in guarding against the use of the device of stages. If you give in this time, you will have to give in a little more next time, and heaven knows where you will stop” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).

[1] Quoted from www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:16-33