The assumption driving this instance of the perfectionist fallacy is that governments should only pursue plans that completely solve the problems they are intended to solve; more generally, the perfectionist assumption is that no measure aimed at solving or reducing a problem is justified unless it solves or reduces it completely. This is really quite silly if you think about it. It is obvious that many measures are intended to reduce a problem, not completely eradicate it, and are justified if they do reduce the problem sufficiently. For example fences are put around cow pastures to keep the cows in; once in a while a cow escapes, but no one would say that the occasional escape shows that the fences are unjustified.
When we include the perfectionist premise in the argument, in this case expressed as a conditional, we see that it is deductively unsound because the perfectionist premise is false:
Was this article helpful?