Cherry Picking
When only select evidence is presented to persuade an audience, while withholding evidence that goes against the position.
THE IDEA
Cherry Picking
(also known as: suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Logical Form: No general form is included in the source excerpt.
Example #1: The original argument is missing; the commentary discusses resumes.
Explanation: A resume presents selected evidence of a candidate’s qualifications. Employers generally expect that selection and may seek more evidence through interviews and recommendations. It becomes misleading when a material omission gives a false impression of the candidate’s suitability.
Example #2: The original argument is missing; the commentary discusses a selective description of God. The source contrasts a favorable description of God with passages depicting jealousy or wrath, citing Psalm 5:5. It also claims that 80% of humanity will suffer eternally in Hell, a percentage not substantiated by the cited verse. Its argument is that omitting contrary passages to make God more “presentable” can misrepresent the text; the original favorable description is missing.
Exception: If the parts of the truth being suppressed do not affect the truth of the conclusion, or can reasonably be assumed, they could be left out of the argument. For example, political candidates are not committing this fallacy when they leave out the fact that they will need about 8 hours of sleep each day.
Tip: If you suspect people are only telling you a half-truth, don’t be afraid to ask, “is there anything you are not telling me?”
When to use it
Evaluating job candidates through resumes and interviews
Presenting a one-sided view of a political candidate in campaign ads
Media reporting that only covers one perspective of a story
Scientific research that ignores null results or contradictory data
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Example #1: Resumes
A resume selects evidence of qualifications, and readers usually expect it to be selective. A material omission becomes a problem when it creates a misleading impression, so employers also use interviews and recommendations.
Example #2: God's Character
The source argues that a favorable description of God should be considered alongside contrary passages such as Psalm 5:5. Its additional claim that 80% of humanity will suffer eternally is not supported by that citation. Making a view more “presentable” through omission is misleading when the omitted material changes the conclusion.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When someone presents an argument, ask 'Is there anything you are not telling me?' to uncover withheld evidence.
How can you recognize when you are cherry picking evidence in your own reasoning?
Why is cherry picking considered a logical fallacy rather than just a bias?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies