Zero-shot capabilities of large language models make them powerful tools for solving a range of tasks without explicit training. It remains unclear, however, how these models achieve such performance, or why they can zero-shot some tasks but not others. In this paper, we shed some light on this phenomenon by defining and investigating algorithmic stability in language models -- changes in problem-solving strategy employed by the model as a result of changes in task specification. We focus on a task where algorithmic stability is needed for generalization: two-operand arithmetic. Surprisingly, we find that Gemma-2-2b employs substantially different computational models on closely related subtasks, i.e. four-digit versus eight-digit addition. Our findings suggest that algorithmic instability may be a contributing factor to language models' poor zero-shot performance across certain logical reasoning tasks, as they struggle to abstract different problem-solving strategies and smoothly transition between them.