He means that enthymematic generalizations "make a singular conclusion likely" similar to how "a properly universal premise make a singular conclusion necessary" (107). Therefore, while making generalizations through enthymemes does not conclude in complete facts, they result in likelihoods, which are still "a respectable thing to believe" (Burnyeat 107).
Although less expansively, Aristotle and other scholars also consider generalizations in their study of enthymemes. Aristotle argues that illicit generalizations, or "maxims that state as a universal truth what is not always true," can arouse anger in the audience (Aristotle in Cooper 154). George Boss breaks down enthymemes and generalizations even further, focusing on the relationship between stereotypes, a generalization about a particular group or individual, and enthymemes. Boss asserts that stereotypes require enthymemes in order to be effective (26). He argues that in both enthymemes and stereotypes, "hearers are expected to finish processing the information and concept within themselves" (Boss 24). By requiring the audience to fill in certain argument gaps, they have to draw general conclusions about certain groups and people that may not be true, thus perpetuating stereotypes in order to conclude an argument. Boss then attempts to explain the rage caused by certain stereotypes. He maintains that if "the subject does not accept the unspoken implications that finalize the enthymeme," he or she is likely to be angry (Boss 26). .
Along with his suggestion that generalizations can evoke anger in the audience, Aristotle discusses the other ways anger is evoked through rhetoric. Aristotle defines anger as "an impulse attended by paincaused by an obvious, unjustified, slight with respect to the individual or his friends" (Aristotle in Cooper 93). Aristotle states that although there are different kinds of slight, in all cases, "something is angered by neglect or interference" (Aristotle in Cooper 96).
