What would be the fallacy for switching the events for individuals?

I'm struggling to get a read on what you're saying, but this is how I interpreted it.

Person 1: Event E was commonly experienced in X way.

Person 2: Not everyone experiences E in X way.

Person 2's reply is actually incomplete, so there's some logical indeterminacy here. The soundness of their response depends on what they meant after that.

• it's possible they were 'just saying' that not everyone experiences E in X way, to counterbalance person 1's point.


• they may have interpreted 'common' as 'everyone' - and this isn't what Person 1 was trying to imply. This would be missing the point/red herring.


• they may be trying to deny that the experience was even common by saying 'not everyone experiences it'. This does not, however, prove something wasn't common. That is a non sequitur.

I'd need the full context to be able to make further comments.

Context is important here. Making a general statement from a specific experience is also fallacious. Scope is what shouldn't be ignored here. For example:

Case 1:
   Person 1: COVID destroyed the lives of everyone.
   Person 2: That is not accurate... not every individual experienced COVID the same way.

Person 1 is being hyperbolic, and not clear nor accurate in communication. Person 2 is correct.

Case 2: 
   Person 1: COVID destroyed the lives of many people.
   Person 2: Not everyone. Not every individual experienced COVID the same way.

Person 1 is accurate, albeit ambiguous (how many is "many")?. Person 2 is correct, albeit redundant. This could be a seen as a strawman fallacy because person 2 seems to be responding to an argument person #1 didn't make.

Without more information, it seems to me that Person 2 is simply clarifying, or interpreting what Person 1 meant by "overall experience:" i.e., not everyone did, but most did. In which case, there wouldn't be a fallacy.