All are Corrupt? All politicians are Corrupt? Logical Analysis of Sweeping Generalization

If X says “all are corrupt” then

All = X + X’s immediate family + X’s friends + everyone else in Pakistan.

Let’s assume X is truthful:

1. As X knows himself very well, and if we assume that X is truthful, then you can accept X’s testimony and say with 100% certainity that X is corrupt because X is in “All”.

2. Similarly, X knows his immediate family very well because X lives or has lived with them, and is qualified to give evidence about them. Therefore, X’s testimony of “All” being corrupt implies X’s immediate family is corrupt with 100% certainity (remember X’s immediate family is included in “all”).

3. Similarly, X knows his close friends very well, meets them regularly, and you can accept his testimony about his close friends being corrupt with 100% certainity (as close friends are included in “all”).

4. Regarding everyone else being corrupt (other than X, X’s immediate family and X’s close friends), you will require documentary evidence of corruption. Hence, nothing with certainity can be said about everyone else.

Hence, we can only be 100% certain about (1) X being corrupt, (2) X’s immediate family being corrupt, and (3) X’s close friends being corrupt.

QED.

Moral: Do not use words like ALL or Never. They denote “sweeping generalizations” which are almost always wrong!