Question:medium

Many people argue that the death penalty deters murder. However, the notorious killer Tom Hanks deliberately moved to a state that imposes the death penalty just before embarking on a series of ferocious murders. Thus, it seems clear that the existence of the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to murder. The argument above may best be characterised as:

Show Hint

One killer's story is used to support a sweeping claim about deterrence everywhere; that is over-generalisation from a single case.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • an appeal to emotion
  • a flawed analogy
  • a general conclusion based on a specific example
  • circular reasoning
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The clue here is scale: one person's story is being used to support a claim about an entire policy's effect on all potential murderers.

  1. The premise is narrow: a single killer, Tom Hanks, was not deterred.
  2. The conclusion is broad: the death penalty does not deter murder in general.
  3. Jumping from a sample size of one to a sweeping general rule is a textbook case of over-generalising from a specific example, not an emotional appeal, not a comparison between two situations (analogy), and not a restatement of the same claim (circular reasoning).

So the correct answer is option C, a general conclusion based on a specific example.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Critical Reasoning


Questions Asked in SNAP exam