system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
When is slipery slope reasoning not fallacious

One of the first things they told me in my philosophy class on logic was that just because something has the form of a 'Logical Fallacy', doesn't mean it is a fallacy.

In regard to slippery slope reasoning, it seems like a lot of people are way too quick to label any argument of that form as a fallacy, when obviously that isn't always the case. 

So, what are some general guidelines you could use to differentiate between a fallacious slippery slope and a non-fallacious slippery slope?

EDIT: The two answers that seem most reasonable are that;

1. A slippery slope is fallicous if you don't give adequate grounds for each step in the causal relationship
2. A slippery slope is fallacious if you don't take into account the decreasing probability of a result through compounding predictions. For example, if i was to say that the probability of landing heads 3 times was 50% because after each subsequent coin flip, there is a 50% chance of landing heads, basically putting yourself in the position of the coin flipper after he's already flipped the coin once/twice/etc...
gpt
I don't think there's much to say specifically, other than recalling the basics of critical thinking in general.

Typically the scenario in which the accusation of "slipper slope fallacy" comes up is one, where it is claimed that 

    A leads to B, B leads to C, ... Y leads to Z, and we don't want Z

or something along those lines, with seemingly a lot of intermediate steps, whereas there's no obvious relation between A and Z on the face of it. This is an informal fallacy if the person who makes this claim doesn't sufficiently substantiate each step, and it's not a fallacy if they sufficiently substantiate each step. And that's pretty much all that is to it.

It's of course not a fallacy per se, to argue that that A leads to B, B leads to C, ... Y leads to Z and we don't want Z. Why would it be a mistake in reasoning to argue for something like this? Long causal chains of events happen all the time, and aren't inherently unpredictable. And all sort of apparently short arguments would be really much longer chain-arguments if we added more details and wrote out all missing premises, as well as justifications for premises and so on.

Presumably people gave it a name and put it in (some) books on critical thinking because they feel that this thing often goes wrong in practice, namely that people tend to not sufficiently back such claims of a slippery slope from A to....to Z. So they want us to be careful when someone advances such reasoning, and make us look closely at the evidence someone presents for their claim.