Quote Originally Posted by Nixxe View Post
snip
You're wrong on multiple accounts. No offense, but don't use "Google" as a basis for your knowledge. You don't know enough about the subject to know whether or not what you think you know is right. "Inductive" arguments depend upon probability, and therefore are evaluated based upon strength and cogency. You were using "deductive" reasoning, which depends on necessity, and is evaluated in terms of validity & soundness. In fact, you were drawing your conclusion from personal experiences, which is by definition an anecdotal argument. But I can understand your confusion between that and a hasty generalization. Again, someone who doesn't know enough about the subject can make easy mistakes here. Here's a very simply difference:

Below is an example of anecdotal reasoning (note the subjective "me"):
Premise: A black dog just bit me.
Premise: The only dog that has ever bitten me was black.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs must be biters.
Below is an example of a hasty generalization:
Premise: A (insert political candidate) supporter believes X
Conclusion: Therefore, all (insert political candidate supporter) must believe X
While both examples draw a conclusion from a small sampling, the difference is that anecdotal reasoning employs personal experiences as evidence of something. Again, it's very easy for someone who only uses Google as a basis for their knowledge to make this mistake.

In any case, it doesn't follow necessarily from your personal experiences with X grand company that X grand company is good or bad. It doesn't matter how often you had those experiences. You can flip a coin a hundred times and get "heads" and it doesn't follow necessarily that "heads" will turn up the next time you flip it.