Argument Analysis: Is this argument a slippery slope?

Question

I am having trouble determining whether this statement is a slippery slope, but cannot think of any other option. I am looking at this as A leads to B and that leads to a catastrophic C, but not sure if it works here.

First, the leader of Egypt was pressured to step down due to enormous pressure from the people of Egypt, and now people of Lybia are applying tremendous pressure for Ghadafi to step down after decades in power. It seems clear that before long, the entire continent of Africa will be under the rule of different leaders than those who are currently in command.

Answer 1

I would prefer “hasty generalization” as the fallacy, because it generalizes to the full set from just two cases. If it were a slippery slope, it would usually at least be implied by the speaker that the second case follows from or is an effect of the first, such that the final result is a consequence of that initial move from the first to the second case. (E.g. “If you outlaw guns then you have to outlaw swords, and then ... you'll have to outlaw butter knives.”) Instead, this is just a case of “Here are 2 cases, so clearly every case!”