Hasty Generalization
A tiny sample does not prove a big claim.
What it is
A hasty generalization draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. A few cases are not a pattern.
On the LSAT this often hides in a survey of a small group, or a study whose sample does not match the conclusion’s scope.
An LSAT-style example
This example is original. It is not a real LSAT question.
The reporter interviewed four commuters, and all four hated the new train schedule. So most commuters must hate it.
The flaw: Four interviews cannot speak for every commuter. The sample is too small, and we do not know how the four were chosen.
How to spot it on test day
- Compare the sample to the conclusion's scope. 'All commuters' needs more than four voices.
- Ask: how was the sample chosen? A biased sample proves nothing.
- Small numbers, big conclusions: that is the pattern.
The right answer vs. the trap
The right answer
The correct answer says the argument generalizes from an inadequate sample.
The trap
The trap may attack the survey method in detail. The flaw is simpler: not enough evidence for the size of the claim.
Find your weak flaws
The free diagnostic scores every question type, including flaw questions, and shows exactly where you are losing points.