What logical fallacy is being used when a politician connects their opponent's economic plan to higher taxes and bigger deficits?

The logical fallacy connected to the idea of linking an opponent's economic plan directly to higher taxes and bigger deficits is known as a slippery slope fallacy. This fallacy occurs when it is argued that a relatively small first step (in this case, adopting a specific economic plan) will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in significant (and usually negative) consequences (such as higher taxes and larger deficits).

In this context, the politician suggests that their opponent's economic approach will automatically result in these extreme outcomes without providing sufficient evidence or reasoning for how such a progression could occur. The slippery slope argument relies on fear and speculation rather than on a clear causal relationship, thereby attempting to sway public opinion through emotional appeal rather than logic.

The other choices listed, such as selected instances, hasty generalization, and post hoc reasoning, involve different forms of misrepresentation or flawed reasoning, but the essence of this situation aligns most closely with the slippery slope fallacy. This is due to the nature of claiming inevitable negative consequences from the acceptance of an economic policy without a strong foundational argument linking the two directly.