Argument to moderation is a logical fallacy where one assumes the compromise between two opposing positions is always correct. This fallacy incorrectly assumes that the midpoint between extremes is inherently superior. It presumes that a moderate stance is automatically valid, regardless of the actual merits of the arguments. This line of reasoning disregards the possibility that one or both of the original positions might be entirely false, or that the truth might lie closer to one extreme than the other.
For example, someone might say, "The company's initial proposal was to cut the budget by 20%, while the union proposed no cuts at all. Therefore, a reasonable compromise would be a 10% budget cut." In this example, the person assumes that a 10% cut is the best solution simply because it lies in the middle. This reasoning ignores the merits of each side's arguments; perhaps a 0% cut is necessary to maintain essential services, or perhaps a 20% cut is unavoidable due to financial constraints.