ABSTRACT
In nearly every case where an arguer is accused of committing the fallacy of sweeping generalization, the accused has earlier generalized hastily on the basis of insufficient evidence and consequently draws particular conclusions from general claims that are unjustified and often untrue. Accusations that a reasoner has committed the fallacy of sweeping generalization often turn out to arise from substantive disagreements about evidence, in this case whether initially something should count as an exception or not. Thus, accusing the arguer of faulty reasoning–as opposed to simply accusing him of having a false premise–requires attributing to the arguer a generalization that is subject to exceptions. Often, then, the accusation of fallacy turns out to be a symptom of a substantive disagreement about evidence, rendering it an unjustified accusation of faulty reasoning. Reasoners accused of making a sweeping generalization must surely be presumed innocent without very strong evidence to the contrary.
