Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.
An argument from anecdote is an informal logical fallacy, when an anecdote is used to draw an improper logical conclusion.The fallacy can take many forms, such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, proof by assertion, and so on.
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the ... Hasty generalization is described as making assumptions about ... political discourse, advertising, or ...
[16]: 147 The generalization, in this case, ignores that insanity is an exceptional case to which the general rights of property do not unrestrictedly apply. Hasty generalization, on the other hand, involves the converse mistake of drawing a universal conclusion based on a small number of instances.
1 Example. 2 Related fallacies. 3 External links. 4 References. Toggle the table of contents. ... The fallacy of converse accident is a form of hasty generalization.
If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization. [ 27 ] In any case where some factor affects the probability of an outcome, rather than uniquely determining it, selected individual cases prove nothing; e.g. "my grandfather smoked two packs a day until he died ...
Secundum quid (also called secundum quid et simpliciter, meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely") is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer fails to recognize the difference between rules of thumb (soft generalizations, heuristics that hold true as a general rule but leave room for exceptions) and categorical propositions, rules that hold ...