Unwarranted Generalization
LSAT glossary · Logical Reasoning
Definition
An LSAT reasoning flaw in which the argument draws a sweeping conclusion from a sample that is too small, unrepresentative, or both. The classic example: "Three of the five restaurants I visited in Rome served excellent pasta; therefore most Roman restaurants must serve excellent pasta." The flaw is that five visited restaurants — possibly chosen because they were recommended, located in a tourist district, or otherwise non-random — cannot ground a claim about the thousands of restaurants in Rome. LSAT phrasing: "draws a general conclusion from an unrepresentative sample."
Unwarranted Generalization in plain English
An unwarranted generalization is when someone makes a big, sweeping claim based on a tiny or slanted handful of examples. If you visited five restaurants in Rome — probably the ones your guidebook recommended in the touristy area — and three had great pasta, you can't leap to "most restaurants in Rome have great pasta," because five cherry-picked spots tell you nothing reliable about thousands of others. It's like tasting two apples from one tree and declaring every apple in the country delicious. The sample is too small, too non-random, or both — so the conclusion overreaches.
Sign up free: all 104 LSAT terms as flashcards, plus practice questions with full explanations →
Related LSAT terms
LSAT practice questions · LSAT flashcards · LSAT study guide