Identify the kind of reasoning used in each of the following statements. What weaknesses, if any, can you find in the reasoning of each?

Contrary to what the chemical industry argues, limiting pesticide use does not threaten the food supply. Sweden has cut back on pesticides by 50 percent over the last few years with almost no decrease in its harvest. The Campbell Soup Company uses no pesticides at all on tomatoes grown in Mexico, and they reap as much fruit as ever. Many California farmers who practice pesticide-free agriculture have actually experienced increases in their crop yields.

The reasoning called specific instances can be observed in arguments that show that the conduct or information shown by a company or institution does not match reality. We can see that this type of reasoning was shown in the text presented in the question above, where an argument is shown that states that the agrochemical industry claims that their products are essential for a large harvest, but reality shows something completely contrary. Although this argument is strengthened by supporting details that show countries that have reduced the use of pesticides and have not had a reduction in harvests, the argument becomes somewhat weakened by not presenting this information in numerical data, which proves that the harvests are still voluminous, even without the pesticide juice.