Which argument most closely parallels the professor's argument that a small pilot study proves the entire plan will work?

• A. A marketer claims nationwide success because a pilot in one city saw improved sales.
• B. A scientist claims a theory because one experiment supported it.
• C. A manager asserts the entire company will benefit from a policy because a pilot in one department saw modest gains.
• D. A doctor asserts that a treatment is safe because a patient recovered after one dose.

Answer: (C)

The question tests the tendency to generalize from a small, limited test to a sweeping conclusion about something larger. When a pilot study or pilot in one part of a system shows only limited or modest results, concluding that the entire plan will work across the whole organization is an overgeneralization. That leap ignores differences that can appear in other departments, contexts, or scales and treats the pilot’s local outcome as if it will automatically apply everywhere.

The best parallel is imagining that a pilot in one department yielded modest gains and then claiming the whole company will benefit from the policy. That mirrors the same leap: using a small, local test to justify a broad, sweeping outcome for the entire system.

The other scenarios involve generalizing from limited evidence to broader claims as well, but they shift the focus to different domains (a single experiment supporting a theory, or treating a single patient’s recovery as proof of safety). The department pilot-to-entire-company move most closely matches the idea of extending a small pilot’s result to the whole plan.