Editing Faulty generalization (section)

==Inductive fallacies==
* 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" when it is very likely not.
* The [[overwhelming exception]] is related to the hasty generalization but works from the other end.  It is a generalization that is accurate, but tags on a qualification that eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume.
* [[Biased sample|Fallacy of unrepresentative samples]] is a fallacy where a conclusion is drawn using samples that are unrepresentative or biased.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy#UnrepresentativeSample|title=Fallacies — Unrepresentative Sample|last=Dowden|first=Bradley|website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=2019-12-05}}</ref>
* [[Misleading vividness]] is a kind of hasty generalization that appeals to the senses.
* Statistical special pleading occurs when the interpretation of the relevant statistic is "massaged" by looking for ways to reclassify or requantify data from one portion of results, but not applying the same scrutiny to other categories.<ref name="Fischer1970">{{citation |title = Historians' Fallacies: Toward A Logic of Historical Thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |year=1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first  |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |pages= 110–113 |url= https://archive.org/stream/HistoriansFallaciesTowardALogicOfHistoricalThought/historians_fallacies_toward_a_logic_of_historical_thought#page/n131/mode/2up}}</ref>
* This can be considered a special case of the [[fallacy of composition]], where the item under discussion is a group, and the fallacy is what can be derived from knowledge of part of the item.