If, based on a discussion with two classmates, you stated to the instructor that "Many of the students in this class would like to have a take-home final," you would be committing a fallacy of .

Explanation:

A fallacy is the use of faulty or invalid reasoning to construct an argument, such a arguments are deceptive as they appear to be better that they really are.  

The fallacy in which a person arrives to a conclusion which is not logically justifies by unbiased or sufficient evidence. When a person makes hasty generalisation, he/she applies a belief to large population based on information he has. If my friend likes to eats lots of pizza and is healthy, i can say that pizza doesn't make a person fat and pizza is healthy.

The students mentioned in the question are making hasty generalisation.

good question. i'll be looking into that. (this is a joke sir)

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.