Final answer:
The statement in question is an example of the perfectionist fallacy, which erroneously claims that a single instance indicates a widespread problem. Option b is correct answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that 'Even one instance of voter fraud is proof that elections are rigged' is an example of the perfectionist fallacy. This fallacy involves setting an impossibly high bar for evidence or performance that cannot reasonably be met. It is not logically correct to claim that an entire system is flawed based on one instance of wrongdoing. In matters such as elections, it is recognized that they involve large numbers of participants and complex processes where perfection is not possible. An assertion that one instance indicates a systemic problem conflates rare incidents with regular occurrences, which does not accurately represent the situation.
To understand the concept of the perfectionist fallacy better, it's useful to look at the idea of making generalizations and how evidence must be gathered and interpreted. The fallacy of hasty generalization is when a conclusion is reached on the basis of too little evidence or a non-representative sample. For example, in drawing conclusions about political behavior, a much larger sample size is required due to the variability in human behavior and beliefs. In contrast to controlled scientific observations like those in physics which can be generalized from observing just a few entities, political predictions require more substantial and varied evidence.
Evidence of this need for careful data collection can be seen in historical polling errors such as the Bradley effect, where social pressures and the desire to conform to perceived social norms can distort polling results. Thus, it is vital to avoid generalizations based on insufficient or biased sample sizes when interpreting the validity of an election or predicting its outcomes.