Which fallacy does the idea of linking past and present views on capital punishment exemplify?

Linking past and present views on capital punishment illustrates a hasty generalization when it draws broad conclusions based on limited historical or contextual evidence. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a conclusion based on insufficient or atypical examples rather than considering a wider range of data. If one were to compare a few historical instances of capital punishment with contemporary beliefs without adequately addressing the complexities and variations in both contexts, they may falsely assume that the same sentiments or reasons apply uniformly across different time periods. Such oversimplification can lead to misleading conclusions about public opinion or ethical considerations regarding capital punishment today.

On the other hand, other options do not as accurately reflect this scenario. Post hoc reasoning involves attributing a cause-effect relationship based solely on sequence rather than solid evidence, while a faulty analogy suggests an irrelevant or inappropriate comparison between two things. The "no technique used" choice implies that there’s no specific fallacy at play, which is not the case here, as the incorrect link between past and present beliefs does exemplify a hasty generalization.