No . You seem not to understand generalizations . My statement applies in general . That is , for a majority of them . Not all . Men are taller than women is a generalization . It is not universally true , but it is correct in general . For the majority . All men are taller than women is not a generalization . It is a universal falsifiable statement and indeed , it ' s a false one . All asteroids on a collision course with the earth are a danger seems pretty true , but it as well is a universal and falsifiable statement . If I find one single asteroid that is on a collision course with the earth that is not a danger like indeed , one that is very small and will easily burn up , then your statement is false . Wrong . Asteroids on a collision course with the earth are a danger is a general statement , not a specific universal one . If I find an asteroid on a collision course with the earth that is not a danger , that does not make it any less generally true that most are . Now , if I find out that 80 % of asteroids on a collision course with the earth are indeed itsybitsy and pose no danger to the earth , that would demonstrate that my generalization was false . Because in general , the asteroids coming this way aren ' t a danger it ' s just the rarer big ones that are . Your last phrase here is a totally different thing entirely . It ' s not a generalization or a statement . It ' s a logical equation of some sort . I can ' t figure out quite what to call it because a syllogism usually requires two propositions and I ' m rusty on what I could call a conclusion based solely on a single proposition besides bad logic , but it ' s in that general style . You are setting up a a foundation with a statement considered to be true Asteroids of 1000 M do we mean metres here ? not sure are dangerous to the earth , and then using that as evidence that all asteroids are dangerous . This is a sort of example of extrapolation , in which you look at a small piece of evidence , and then assume that the same observed findings occur universally in the parts you didn ' t observe , even where different . All asteroids are dangerous is a universal statement , where again , a single case can falsify it . So you ' re taking a specific case that is observed and true , and assuming that all cases are the same this is also the same principle behind the bad reasoning my child is the best part of my life , therefore everyone needs to have children , and this involves some sort of generalizing in your head , but the statement is not a generalization .