Final answer:
The argument that Jane plays hockey because 60% of Canadians do is not valid, as an individual cannot be assumed to conform to statistical generalizations about a population.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument that because 60% of Canadians play hockey, Jane, who is Canadian, must play hockey is not valid. This statement is an example of the ecological fallacy, which is when assumptions are made about individuals based on aggregated data for a group. In logical terms, just because a certain percentage of a population has a characteristic, it does not necessarily follow that any individual member of that population will have that characteristic.
To illustrate, imagine a different scenario: If it was said that 60% of Canadians have brown hair, it would be incorrect to conclude that Jane has brown hair simply because she is Canadian. The same flawed reasoning applies to the assertion about her playing hockey.