Is the following Inductive Generalization strong or weak? Apply and explain the three checks: 1. Is the appropriate group sampled? 2. Is the sample truly random? 3. Is the sample adequate in number? Then give your verdict: strong or weak.

Oxytocin seems to make people more inclined to trust strangers with their cash. In a game in which 58 volunteers could invest money with anonymous trustees, economist Ernst Fehr of the University of Zurich and his colleagues dosed half the subjects with a whiff of oxytocin while the others received an inert placebo nose spray (but were told it was a real drug). After investors who sniffed the actual oxytocin were twice as likely to invest all their funds.

For the reasons mentioned in the explanation section, it is indeed a weak generalization:  

Step-by-step explanation:

No, there is not enough data provided on certain subjects' age, socioeconomic status, etc. that may have influenced the investing decision.No, the survey isn't random, the study is irregular because each has a fair probability of expressing their true beliefs, here in this query it's written they've been told individuals are given actual medication, which may have contributed to the Hawthorne studies giving incorrect outcomes.No, the amount isn't sufficient mostly on the premise of 28 subject areas with be provided oxytocin, and therefore only one test being performed should we not be able to determine the results to implement for certain persons including billions of populace, it would be a hurried generalization.