Final answer:
The statement represents a hasty generalization, which is a fallacy of weak induction, where the conclusion that a political science major should be elected Student Government President is made without sufficient evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement, "Dan is a political science major. Therefore, he should be elected Student Government President," suggests a kind of logical error in reasoning, where the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise provided. This is indicative of a fallacy -- specifically, a hasty generalization, which is a type of fallacy of weak induction. This particular fallacy arises when a conclusion is drawn from inadequate or biased evidence. Here, simply being a political science major does not in itself qualify someone to be a Student Government President, as being knowledgeable in a subject does not equate to possessing the necessary leadership skills or popularity required for election.