Name for a rhetorical device suggesting an individual fault by generalization

Question

I am trying to find the name of the rhetorical device used in the following (deliberately absurd) example:

John says that he believes in motherhood and apple pie.
In my experience many people who say that suffer from an Oedipus complex [although I am sure that this does not apply in his case].

The clause in brackets is optional, but, when included, is clearly ironic and/or insincere as the intent is to ascribe an Oedipus complex to “John” by subconscious or psychological association.

This is not the same as guilt by association/the association fallacy which relates to a logical fallacy that might be used in an argument. Here one can even state that this is not the conclusion the audience should draw, when in fact one is suggesting the idea in the hope they will make the (false) conclusion. It is a device of rhetoric, not of logic.

I find it quite difficult to search for this kind of thing. I tried other questions tagged with ‘rhetoric’, and the Wikipedia list of rhetorical devices, where the closest thing seemed to be innuendo. Is there anything more specific?

Answer 1

A term that has been increasingly used in the recent past and that is still in current use is "sweeping generalization"; it's found often enough in mathematical literature, but it is much more widely applicable.

It is recognized specifically as a technical term naming the type of fallacy in question.

(Firmitas) Logical fallacy: Sweeping generalization

An argument is constructed in which a simplistic general rule is assumed to be more widely true, therefore an exception is ignored.

Its form

• Some X are Y.
• Therefore all X are Y.

(Some or many people like that suffer from an Oedipus complex. Therefore all people like that suffer from this complex, and John, being like that, also must be afflicted with one.)