What logical fallacy is illustrated when a specific case is incorrectly used to justify a broad conclusion?

The scenario described entails taking a specific instance and generalizing it to form an overarching conclusion, which is the hallmark of a hasty generalization. This fallacy occurs when someone draws a conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence, often because they rely too heavily on one or few cases rather than a more extensive sampling of instances.

For instance, if one were to observe a single event, such as an unfairly judged basketball game, and then conclude that all referees are incompetent, this jump in reasoning exemplifies a hasty generalization. It fails to account for the vast number of games and referees, thus using the isolated case inappropriately to support a sweeping claim about all referees.

This approach can lead to misconceptions and stereotypes, making it vital in logical reasoning and argumentation to ensure that conclusions are based on comprehensive and representative evidence rather than singular or anecdotal experiences.