Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions.

For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are. (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.)

We need to be careful with such arguments.

In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions. For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative. The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be.

Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the generalisation fallacy.

Examples

“Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.”

“Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”

Links

Case Studies