Okay, I admit that I'm not an expert on my car's fuel system. Thank you for the clarification.

But that's also part of my point anyway. The reason it's not a slippery slope is because the underlying assumptions and causations are so rigid that it is not reductionism to reduce all of the logic gates to a simple turn key -> start car. I do not have to know the intricate knowledge of my car's fuel system. So long as I know that most of the assumptions are true, I'll get the implied conclusion.

Whereas, in a Slippery Slope fallacy, I am relying on my assertions to be true since I can't actually prove that any of my underlying assumptions are true.

As humans, we don't have to solve the Knowledge Problem to drive a car, in the same way we don't have to know how to build a pencil from scratch in order to use one. We use logical functions and implications to hide information that is not pertinent to the user, but still creates the outcomes we are seeking so long as our inputs are valid.

A Slippery Slope mimics that, but fails to actually validate it's underlying assumptions.