Chart of logical fallacies.

Don't be guilty of any of these!

While handy, it's misleading if one doesn't understand how logic is supposed to work in the first place.  Most logical fallacies are only fallacious if used in a certain way.  Ad hominem, appeals to authority, and tu quoque aren't fallacies.  They're legitimate arguments which can be used fallaciously.  Begging the question, on the other hand, is always fallacious.  Many of the "fallacies" on this list have perfectly legitimate forms.
.
A Catholic should make an infographic like this.  Usually these infographics have a certain spin, and I'm not just talking about the examples given.  Take "slippery slope", for instance.  In my experience, people cry "slipper slope" when their principles or premises are shown to lead to absurd conclusions.  So let's actually take the example of slippery slope from the infographic.  "Proponents of same-sex marriage say that erotic or romantic love is the only prerequisite to marriage.  One might have erotic love for a parent, sibling, minor, or animal.  Ergo, we would have to allow people to marry within their families or even outside their species."  This is a logical argument that follows from a premise.  There's nothing fallacious about it.  If someone's complete argument was actually "if we let gαys marry then we have to let people marry cats too" then it would be a slippery slope, but no one has ever said that.
.
An actual slippery slope fallacy is a slippery slope precisely because it fails to demonstrate that one thing follows from another.  It's just a cuter name for a non-sequitur.  It simply assumes that b follows from a without actually showing that it does.

An actual slippery slope fallacy is a slippery slope precisely because it fails to demonstrate that one thing follows from another.  It's just a cuter name for a non-sequitur.  It simply assumes that b follows from a without actually showing that it does.

Slippery Slope is nothing but failed argumentum ad absurdum, also related to fallacious post hoc propter hoc.

Slippery Slope is nothing but failed argumentum ad absurdum, also related to fallacious post hoc propter hoc.

.
Well, failed precisely because the reduction to absurdity was not demonstrated... so, like I said, it's just a non sequitur :)

While handy, it's misleading if one doesn't understand how logic is supposed to work in the first place.  

I agree.  It seems to me that most people have not been taught logic and that knowing the fallacies is of limited usefulness in isolation.
I was not taught logic until university.  As a home-schooling parent, I taught it to my children at middle school and high school ages.  This is when I think people ought to learn these things.  In the Classical model of education, the basic subjects were the Trivium - grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Logic should be seen as a basic skill, not something put off to university or left out altogether.  I think that the absence of logic is one reason that the world has been so susceptible to the errors of liberalism and modernism.  As trads we tend to focus on how these things are sins, but they are also really dumb ideas.  A better ability to think would offer some protection against them.

Logic should be seen as a basic skill, not something put off to university or left out altogether.  I think that the absence of logic is one reason that the world has been so susceptible to the errors of liberalism and modernism.  As trads we tend to focus on how these things are sins, but they are also really dumb ideas.  A better ability to think would offer some protection against them.

Sometimes yes.  In most cases, however, I've found that people are deceived because they want to be deceived.  They find fallacious arguments to be persuasive by applying confirmation bias to them.

I think that slippery slope can definitely be an indicator of a problem.  I've used this a lot myself.

Pius XII opened the door to NFP.  Now NFP has become so pervasive that it's effectively Catholic birth control.  Even if Pius XII's teaching did not necessarily, if properly undestood, logically lead to the latter, there was something wrong or imprecise or defective about the original teaching that allowed people to run with it.  So, while this slippery slope, doesn't per se prove anything, it's definitely an indicator of a problem that must be examined.

.
Well that's bait if I've ever seen it. 
.
Pius IX opened the door to NFP when his Holy Office approved of its use the first time the Church was ever questioned about it in 1853.  Then Leo XIII did the same thing with his Holy Office, then Pius XI did the same thing with his, then Pius XII the same thing with his, all the while every other pope (including Pope St. Pius X) supervised and failed to rebuke a century worth of theologians who all taught its lawfulness.  The Onigo-Knox system disseminated by Dr. Latz out of Chicago has a far more proximate convergence with the abuse of NFP than the Church's teaching did... the Church was approving of it for 75 years and it didn't start to become contentious until medical scholars finally "figured it out."
.
Proximity is key if one is going to try to make value of a real slippery slope.  Exactly how proximate does a have to be from b, I don't know.  But NFP is a good example... it was approved without any social discord for almost a hundred years, and once the social discord did arise, it arose almost immediately after the publication and dissemination of Dr. Latz's work which synthesized the literature on Rhythm and disseminated it for a popular audience with charts, instructions, etc. on how to use it.  Not to sound like I'm giving a post hoc argument, only to point out that if we're starting at a high level and trying to pinpoint a problem, proximity is going to need to guide us. Otherwise we might as well just distill everything to the fall and call it a day.

Nope.  Won't go there.  Just used it as an example.  I'm not going to turn this into another 100-page NFP thread.

.
Thank you!  To the point, I can get behind your idea that the slippery slope can be used in a valid way, not necessarily as an argument, but as a method of assessing a situation or state of affairs at a high level to try to understand the different possible sources of a specific outcome.