The fallacy of sweeping generalization is committed when a rule that is

generally accepted to be correct is used incorrectly in a particular

instance. The best way to explain this is with an example:

They are essentially the inverse of each other. A sweeping generalization is applying a
general rule to a specific instance (without proper evidence), and a hasty generalization
is applying a specific rule to a general situation (without proper evidence). For example:

A sweeping generalization is when someone assumes something where it does not apply. Try
not to get this confused with hasty generalization. Most generalizations are not universal; they
have exceptions. They do not apply to everything. To ignore this fact is to commit a logical
fallacy.

For example:
Jogging is good for the heart.
Joe has a heart problem.
Therefore he should go jogging more often.

It is true that jogging is generally good for the heart, but not for everyone. Most people with a
heart condition would only worsen their condition by jogging. Therefore, there is an exception to
jogging being good for your heart, it is bad when you have a certain heart condition, so this does
not apply to Joe.

Another example:
Nothing is true just because someone says it is.
Therefore, we shouldn't trust everything God has said.

This is fallacious. Although it is true that people do not always speak the truth, God is an
exception; He never lies and He knows everything, therefore, we should take Him at His Word.

"That is the richest sorority on campus; so Sue, who belongs to that

sorority must be one of the richest women on campus." Well, Sue
may be one of the richest; or she may be one of the poorest. It
doesn't matter whether the conclusion is true or not in the literal
sense. The argument is illogical. It means nothing at all to say that,
if a group has a certain quality, then a member of the group must
have that quality, too.

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you

must dislike atheists."

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are

insincere."
False cause (non causa pro causa, non sequitur): Something is identified as the cause
of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God
cured me of the headache."

She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused
her sickness.

COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING

1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or

association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows
another it was caused by the other.

example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she
was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.

example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level
has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed
that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases)
was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex
education than for high schools that did not.