Identify the type of reasoning: 'All observed swans are white; therefore, all swans are white.'

Identify the type of reasoning: 'All observed swans are white; therefore, all swans are white.'

• A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• B. Ad hominem
• C. Overgeneralization
• D. Slippery slope

Answer: (C)

This is an overgeneralization. The reasoning takes what’s been observed in a small set of cases and extends it to all cases—saying all swans are white simply because the ones seen are white. That leap ignores the possibility of unseen swans with different colors, so the universal claim isn’t justified by the limited evidence. To support a conclusion about every swan, you’d need observations of all swans or a guarantee that the sample represents all possibilities. The other options describe different fallacies: post hoc claims causation from sequence, ad hominem attacks the person, and slippery slope predicts an extreme chain of events without sufficient justification.

This is an overgeneralization. The reasoning takes what’s been observed in a small set of cases and extends it to all cases—saying all swans are white simply because the ones seen are white. That leap ignores the possibility of unseen swans with different colors, so the universal claim isn’t justified by the limited evidence. To support a conclusion about every swan, you’d need observations of all swans or a guarantee that the sample represents all possibilities. The other options describe different fallacies: post hoc claims causation from sequence, ad hominem attacks the person, and slippery slope predicts an extreme chain of events without sufficient justification.