|Slothful induction is a fallacy that is committed when an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for making an inference. That is, an appropriate generalization from the presented cases is ignored.
This fallacy is opposed to the fallacy of hasty generalization (to be discussed in the next episode) insofar as hasty generalization makes a generalization from unrepresentative or insufficient cases, while slothful induction is the failure to make a generalization justified by sufficient and representative cases.
The deductive version of this fallacy is the accident fallacy (also known as sweeping generalization), discussed in episode 55.
The argument is a slothful induction because twelve accidents in six months is strong evidence of a common cause to the accidents that has to somehow involve Hugo, yet he claims that there is no common cause at all.
This is an example of slothful induction because children normally result from marriage and twelve wives for twelve years is sufficient to conclude that the absence of children has something to do with the man.