Which type of reasoning flaw involves claiming a conclusion based on limited examples?

The reasoning flaw that involves claiming a conclusion based on limited examples is known as Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization. This occurs when someone draws a general conclusion from atypical or insufficient evidence. For instance, if an argument suggests that all birds can fly because a few examples of birds (like eagles or sparrows) can indeed fly, it disregards the many exceptions in the bird species, such as ostriches and penguins.

In the context of the other options, Survey Errors involve misrepresenting or inaccurately interpreting data collected from a survey, while Patterns in Logic refer to the broader logical relationships that might not inherently involve flawed reasoning based on limited examples. Ambiguous Terms pertain to the use of vague language that can cause misunderstanding, but they do not directly address the reliance on insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. Therefore, the correct identification of the Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization flaw emphasizes the importance of substantiating claims with adequate examples and not relying on a small sample size.