In which argument is the reasoning most similar to the professor's argument about the single observation generalizing to a universal rule?

• A. A politician argues that a policy will work nationwide because it worked in one small town.
• B. A researcher claims a theory because its predictions matched in one dataset.
• C. A company asserts a product is reliable because it survived a failure test.
• D. A journalist argues that the plan will work because a single example contradicts it.

Answer: (D)

The main idea being tested is a hasty generalization: drawing a universal conclusion from a single observation. In this kind of reasoning, one instance is treated as if it proves something for all cases, which is a faulty leap.

The option that matches this pattern most closely is where someone claims the plan will work based on a single example. Treating that lone instance as evidence that the plan works everywhere ignores the many other situations where it could fail. That mirrors the professor’s move of taking one observation and generalizing it to a universal rule, which is exactly the kind of reasoning the question is highlighting.

The other scenarios lean on broader evidence or don’t commit the same leap from one case to all cases, so they don’t align as directly with the given pattern.