🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
cherry_picking
Cherry picking selectively presents only the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring or suppressing evidence that contradicts it. Unlike honest argumentation where one weighs all available evidence, cherry picking creates a misleading picture by curating data. It is one of the most insidious fallacies because the cited evidence is often individually legitimate.
"Studies clearly show this drug is safe." (The speaker cites three small studies showing no side effects while ignoring two large-scale studies that found significant risks.)
A politician claims: 'Crime has fallen dramatically under my administration.' He highlights a 15% drop in burglaries but omits that violent crime and homicides rose significantly during the same period.
A fitness brand's website states: 'Customers love our program!' and displays five glowing five-star reviews, while quietly suppressing the hundreds of one-star reviews citing no results and poor customer service.
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Is only favorable evidence being presented while unfavorable evidence is omitted?
Type: binaryWould the conclusion change if all relevant evidence were considered?
Type: binaryIs the selection of evidence systematic or biased toward a predetermined conclusion?
Type: binaryCherry picking selectively presents only the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring or suppressing evidence that contradicts it. Unlike honest argumentation where one weighs all available evidence, cherry picking creates a misleading picture by curating data. It is one of the most insidious fallacies because the cited evidence is often individually legitimate.
Each piece of cited evidence is real and verifiable, making the argument appear well-supported. Audiences rarely have the time or expertise to check whether contrary evidence exists, so the selective presentation goes unchallenged.
Ask whether all relevant evidence has been considered: 'What does the full body of evidence say? Are there studies or data points that disagree?' Look for systematic reviews rather than individual studies.
Pervasive in pharmaceutical marketing, climate change denial, political campaign fact sheets, corporate earnings presentations, and any advocacy where selective data presentation can sway opinion.
The anecdotal argument fallacy occurs when personal experiences, individual stories, or isolated examples are presented as sufficient evidence for a general claim. While anecdotes can be valuable for illustration, hypothesis generation, or making data relatable, they are unreliable as evidence because they are subject to selection bias, survivorship bias, memory distortion, and the representativeness heuristic. A single vivid story can psychologically overwhelm statistical evidence covering thousands of cases.
The weak man fallacy occurs when an arguer selects the weakest, least competent, or most extreme proponent of an opposing position and refutes their version of the argument, then presents this as a refutation of the position as a whole. Unlike the straw man fallacy, no distortion of the argument occurs — the weak version is genuinely held by someone. The fallacy lies in the selection: by cherry-picking the weakest representative rather than engaging the strongest formulation, the arguer creates the illusion of having defeated a position they have not seriously confronted.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.