"You know, X type isn't the only type with that characteristic. Y type can be that too!" is a common reply to people describing the archetypes in their arguments. Perhaps this is not unfounded, people may use broad terms like 'creative' or 'logical' as their justification for N and T types respectively. But there is an inherent lack of meaning in this reply if there is nothing else presented.
Typology is about generalization, and in that sense, we do make leaps of logic in order to convey our points in a way that is less confusing or overly verbose. We do generalize about people to get their type, that is simply how typology is done. And there are traits that are more likely to be a particular trait than another. For example, even if someone were to say, "creative" as a justification for a subject's type like ENFP when you are against it and believe the subject is ESFP, think of the correlations. It is much more likely for an ENFP to be listed as "creative" than an ESFP because of reasons such as the tendency of an ENFP to be more likely to score openness on the Big 5, while ESFP is not as likely. Indeed, an ESFP can be creative, and hence Y can be Z too. But, it is not a counterargument on its own.