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."