I don't agree that the argument has a sampling error.
"Interviews conducted with young cricketers who drank one cup of Roost each before and after the match, confirmed that the players were feeling much fresher than those who did not take the health drink" --> This implies a one off event, but the conclusion says that it must be a good habit.
Hence the main flaw is that the evidence really is irrelevant. A one of event cannot justify an habit[if you take a painkiller to cure pain before an ailment, does it make taking painkillers a good habit ? No]
...
"Interviews conducted with young cricketers who drank one cup of Roost each before and after the match, confirmed that the players were feeling much fresher than those who did not take the health drink" --> This implies a one off event, but the conclusion says that it must be a good habit.
Hence the main flaw is that the evidence really is irrelevant. A one of event cannot justify an habit[if you take a painkiller to cure pain before an ailment, does it make taking painkillers a good habit ? No]
...





