This is a variation of the False Dilemma Fallacy, also called the Continuum Fallacy. It goes something like this:
If Policy X does not meet all the objectives as well as we want it to (ie perfectly), then Policy X should b rejected.
This principle downgrades X simply because it isn't perfect. It says in effect " Either the policy is perfect. else we must reject it"
Some examples
DRS and BCCI
Lets take a look at the DRS (Decision Review System in Cricket). The system offers 90 t0 95% accuracy. However the BCCI is not in favor of the system because it is not 100% Correct. This is a debatable stance. Those who believe 90 to 95% accuracy is adequate, would say that the BCCI is a victim/perpetrator of the Line Drawing Fallacy - unless it is 100% accurate, it will not accept the DRS
Other examples
- What's the point of legislating a law for minimum age to drink? Kids still manage to get drinks anyway
- What's the point in voting? All political parties are anyway corrupt
-What's the point in spending money in training employees? They will anyway change jobs soon
