The phrase "a general distinction" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a broad or overarching difference between two or more concepts, categories, or items.
Example: "In philosophy, a general distinction is often made between subjective and objective truths."
Alternatives: "a broad difference" or "a basic differentiation".
For this proposition the Court relies almost entirely on the fact that American law makes a general distinction between deportation and exclusion.
We therefore introduce a general distinction between metaphoric (elements of features) and others.
But they all rest on a general distinction between aggregate and conglomerate collectivities.
We make a general distinction between those methods and tools designed to help explore datasets, and those designed to help present results to others.
As to the characteristics of the encoded audio, as a general distinction Apple devices acquire audio using one channel at sample rate of 44100 bit/s, whereas Android devices usually acquire two audio channels at 48000 bit/s.
Rather, we will introduce a general distinction between hard and soft attitudes, distinction mainly developed in dynamic epistemic logic (van Benthem 2011), which proves useful in understanding the various philosophical issues raised by epistemic game theory.
While a somewhat general distinction can be usefully maintained, it is misleading to think of the partialist-impartialist debate as a dispute between two clearly defined, and clearly opposed, camps (Deigh 1991; Barry 1995, pp. 191 5).
A broad general distinction between plants and animals lies in the targeting of endogenously produced miRNAs; in plants, miRNAs are usually perfectly or nearly perfectly complementary to their target genes and induce direct mRNA cleavage by RISC, while animals' miRNAs tend to be more divergent in sequence and induce translational repression.
Let us begin with a much more general distinction, the distinction between dispositions on the one hand and powers on the other.
Among the Marvel-collecting masses, the jury's still out, but it's worth making a few general distinctions.
This is just a specific instance of the general distinction, stressed by Rawls (2001), between the use of forward-looking considerations in justifying a practice (or, in this case, an institutional design) and using those same considerations to justify infringement of the rules of an ongoing practice.
