In a marketing claim, what flaw is present when only a few favorable opinions are used to support a broad conclusion?

The flaw present when only a few favorable opinions are used to support a broad conclusion is known as Selected Instances. This occurs when the argument relies on a limited or non-representative sample of opinions, experiences, or evidence to make a generalization about a larger group or situation. By focusing only on positive or favorable instances, the argument fails to provide a comprehensive view, which could lead to misleading conclusions.

For example, if a product is claimed to be highly effective based on only a handful of positive reviews while ignoring the majority of negative feedback, it misrepresents the product’s actual effectiveness. This selective use of information does not account for the full spectrum of experiences, which is crucial when making claims that are meant to appeal to a wider audience.

In contrast, the other options don't accurately capture this specific flaw. No Technique refers to a lack of a persuasive method, Composition deals with the assumption that what is true for the part is true for the whole, and Faulty Analogy involves comparing two unlike things. None of these descriptions fit the scenario of cherry-picking favorable opinions to generalize about a broader conclusion.