When someone uses the outcome of one week's trivia game to argue that the next week's questions are easy, what logical issue does this reflect?

The argument presented reflects a logical issue known as "selected instances." This occurs when someone uses a specific case or isolated event—such as the outcome of one week's trivia game—to make a broad generalization about another situation, in this case, claiming that next week's questions are easy. The reasoning fails because it doesn't consider other factors or a broader range of evidence that could affect the difficulty of the questions. Relying solely on a single instance to draw a conclusion about a subsequent event misrepresents the overall situation and can lead to misleading assertions.

In this context, acknowledging the outcome of one week's game does not provide a reliable basis for predicting the nature of future trivia questions, as those could vary widely in difficulty. Hence, the generalization is not supported by sufficient evidence.