Which fallacy is exemplified when someone makes a broad claim based on limited examples?

The reasoning behind selecting Faulty Generalization as the correct answer lies in the nature of the argument being presented. A Faulty Generalization occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion from insufficient or biased evidence. This often leads to sweeping statements that do not accurately represent the entirety of a subject because they are based on a limited number of cases or examples.

For instance, if someone claims that all city dwellers are unfriendly based on a handful of interactions with a few individuals in a specific city, they are making a faulty generalization. This is problematic because it overlooks the diversity and variety of experiences that exist within the larger population.

In contrast, Circular Reasoning involves asserting a conclusion that is essentially the same as the premise, without providing additional evidence. Ad Hominem attacks target the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself, while a Red Herring introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. None of these other options capture the essence of making a broad claim based on limited evidence, affirming why Faulty Generalization is the best fit for the described scenario.