Logic: Cherry-Picking
Cherry-Picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence or the fallacy of suppressed evidence, occurs when someone selectively presents only certain pieces of evidence that support their argument or position while ignoring or omitting other relevant evidence that might contradict or weaken their case. This fallacy creates a misleading or one-sided presentation of information by focusing solely on data that supports a particular viewpoint.
Here's a detailed explanation with examples:
Cherry-Picking Example 1: A politician presents statistics showing a decrease in unemployment rates during their time in office while ignoring the fact that the overall economy was already improving before they took office.
In this example, the politician selectively presents data that supports their claim of economic success while ignoring the broader context that contributed to the improving unemployment rates.
Cherry-Picking Example 2: An advertisement for a skincare product showcases before-and-after photos of individuals with significant improvements in their skin's appearance. However, the advertisement omits information about the percentage of people who did not experience any improvement from using the product.
By showcasing only the successful cases, the advertisement misleads consumers by not presenting a complete picture of the product's effectiveness.
Cherry-Picking Example 3: A climate change skeptic points to a period of cooler temperatures as evidence against global warming while ignoring the overwhelming consensus and long-term trends supported by scientific research.
By highlighting a short-term anomaly, the skeptic cherry-picks data to cast doubt on a well-established scientific phenomenon.
Cherry-Picking Example 4: A news article reports on a study that finds a correlation between chocolate consumption and improved cognitive function. The article neglects to mention that the study was funded by a chocolate company.
By omitting the funding source, the article cherry-picks information to present the study's findings as more credible than they might actually be.
Cherry-Picking Example 5: A company promotes a new diet plan by sharing testimonials from individuals who have lost a significant amount of weight. However, the company does not mention that these testimonials represent a small fraction of people who tried the diet and that many others did not experience similar results.
The company's selective use of success stories cherry-picks positive outcomes to create a favorable impression of the diet plan.
Cherry-Picking Example 6: An academic paper on the benefits of a particular teaching method only cites studies that support its claims, ignoring research that contradicts or raises questions about the method's effectiveness.
By omitting contradictory studies, the paper presents a one-sided view of the evidence and engages in cherry-picking to strengthen its argument.
Cherry-Picking Example 7: A debate participant quotes a few isolated statements from a historical figure to portray them as supporting a specific ideology, while disregarding other statements that provide a more nuanced perspective.
By selectively using quotes, the debater engages in cherry-picking to bolster their argument and manipulate the historical figure's views.
In each of these examples, the cherry-picking fallacy occurs when someone selectively presents evidence that supports their argument while ignoring or omitting relevant evidence that may present a more complete or balanced picture. To avoid this fallacy, it's important to consider a wide range of information and sources when evaluating an argument or making a decision.