Answer:
The sentences you provided do not demonstrate a specific logical fallacy. However, they do present a chain of reasoning or an argument. The argument can be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: If overfishing continues, there will be no more fish in the ocean for people to eat.
Premise 2: If there are no more fish in the ocean, there will be a terrible food crisis around the world.
Conclusion: It won't be long before all of the grocery shelves are empty.
This argument is based on a causal relationship between overfishing, the depletion of fish in the ocean, and a potential food crisis. The logical validity of this argument depends on the accuracy and strength of the causal claims made. It is important to note that the outcome described is a potential consequence and not an absolute certainty.
However, if you are looking for a logical fallacy in the way the argument is presented, it could be considered a slippery slope fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy occurs when it is assumed that a particular action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly negative consequences without sufficient evidence to support this claim. In this case, the argument assumes that if overfishing continues, it will inevitably lead to no more fish in the ocean, a worldwide food crisis, and empty grocery shelves. While these outcomes are possible, they may not be the only possible outcomes and may not necessarily occur in the way described.
Step-by-step explanation: