Let me first begin by saying that I do not have a formal background in philosophy. I was looking into formal logic and common fallacies and could not find a formal framework for the following situation : Imagine someone says that x dropped out of school and won the nobel prize. To refute this, someone cites that generally, people who drop out of school do not do well, hence someone who dropped out could not have won the nobel prize. On the face of it, this looks like the exact opposite of appealing to ridicule (where the general is incorrectly refuted by citing the extreme). Is there a formal name for this?
It does not follow, because in general people who drop out of school do not do well, that a particular person, X, who dropped out did not do well and even win the Nobel prize. It's like saying because most people cannot do X, a particular individual cannot do X. It was certainly improbable that X would win the Nobel prize but no more than improbable : and improbabilities can and do happen all the time. (Though in any particular field - to avoid the obvious objection - less often than probabilities.)
As for a label, John Stuart Mill deals with this type of case under the heading of 'Fallacies of Generalization' ('A System of Logic', V.5). See also C.L. Hamblin, 'Fallacies', London: Methuen, 1972, 48-9.