Recently, a report commissioned by a confectioners trade association noted that Support chocolate, formerly considered a health scourge, is an effective antioxidant and so has health benefits. ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███ █ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████
The argument concludes that over time, almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful. Why? Because both chocolate and olive oil have been considered unhealthy in the past, but were more recently reported to have health benefits.
The argument is flawed because it makes an overly broad generalization from limited evidence. Just two examples of foods eventually reported to be healthful—chocolate and olive oil—isn’t enough to show that almost any food will eventually be reported to be healthful.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
relies on the █████ ██ █ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████
applies a general ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███████
bases an overly █████ ██████████████ ██ ████ █ ███ █████████
takes for granted ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████████
fails to consider ████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ███████████