Hasty Generalization
If your opponent has used statistical information or particular facts of any kind to arrive at a generalization, then you should claim that the generalization was too hasty. This can be done in one of two ways. Either you provide evidence of an exception to his generalization, or you argue that he did not examine enough cases even if you cannot think of a counterinstance. A variation of this argument is the claim that no adequate sample was used.
Try to impress upon the audience the foolhardiness of any generalization by thinking of an example that they will recognize as too hasty.
For example, if your opponent is trying to characterize Orientals as not being ready for democracy, you might point out to an audience of those who are sympathetic to the plight of black people that the same sort of argument was used by Southern racists for not granting blacks the right to vote. Southerners were a bit hasty, maybe your opponent is too.
Composition
The fallacy of composition is another instance of an error of arguing from individual cases to a general case or to a whole.
The difference between composition and hasty generalization is that in hasty generalization I am making a prediction about the next individual I come across based upon the examination of other individuals of the same kind.
Division
The fallacy of division is that of believing some property of a whole to be automatically a property of every part of that whole.
Accident
In the fallacy of accident one mistakenly applies a general principle to a specific case without realizing that the circumstances (accidents) of the individual case make the general principle inapplicable.
When accusing someone of the fallacy of accident one could argue that what he is really saying is that one general principle takes precedence over another general principle. Thus he is accusing his opponent of not clearly seeing the real problem at hand. And, in general, this is what happens in an argument where two sides view the problem from different perspectives. All of this should reinforce how important it is to establish the best generalizations, in the sense of the most defensible ones, in the early part of your argument.
Try to impress upon the audience the foolhardiness of any generalization by thinking of an example that they will recognize as too hasty.
For example, if your opponent is trying to characterize Orientals as not being ready for democracy, you might point out to an audience of those who are sympathetic to the plight of black people that the same sort of argument was used by Southern racists for not granting blacks the right to vote. Southerners were a bit hasty, maybe your opponent is too.
Composition
The fallacy of composition is another instance of an error of arguing from individual cases to a general case or to a whole.
The difference between composition and hasty generalization is that in hasty generalization I am making a prediction about the next individual I come across based upon the examination of other individuals of the same kind.
Division
The fallacy of division is that of believing some property of a whole to be automatically a property of every part of that whole.
Accident
In the fallacy of accident one mistakenly applies a general principle to a specific case without realizing that the circumstances (accidents) of the individual case make the general principle inapplicable.
When accusing someone of the fallacy of accident one could argue that what he is really saying is that one general principle takes precedence over another general principle. Thus he is accusing his opponent of not clearly seeing the real problem at hand. And, in general, this is what happens in an argument where two sides view the problem from different perspectives. All of this should reinforce how important it is to establish the best generalizations, in the sense of the most defensible ones, in the early part of your argument.
Comments