Cherry-Picking Fallacy – Meaning, Examples & Psychology

If you only use studies that support your thesis or dissertation and ignore those that don’t, you’re committing the cherry–picking fallacy. This logical error occurs when someone presents only selective evidence to back their argument, overlooking contradictory data. If you are eager to learn more about fallacies and how to avoid them, keep reading. This knowledge will strengthen your academic writing and enhance your critical thinking skills.

Definition: Cherry-picking fallacy

The cherry-picking fallacy is an informal fallacy where one selectively presents only the evidence that supports their argument while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. The error stems from how the argument’s content is handled rather than its logical structure. This selective presentation of data creates a misleading, incomplete, or biased argument. By focusing solely on favorable information, the individual distorts the reality of the situation, making their argument appear stronger than it truly is. People might do this deliberately to mislead others or accidentally because of their biases. For example, if a manager claims that a new project management tool has greatly increased productivity by highlighting a few successful projects while ignoring several others where it caused delays and confusion, they’re cherry-picking. This logical fallacy creates a skewed and incomplete picture, making it difficult to get the full story. It’s important to look at all the evidence, not just the parts that support what we want to believe.

Examples of the cherry-picking fallacy

The cherry-picking fallacy can be found in many fields, including science, politics, legal proceedings, and marketing, where individuals or organizations present only favorable data or outcomes while ignoring or downplaying any evidence that contradicts their claims. It is commonly used by political candidates to selectively highlight favorable statistics or incidents. This selective presentation leads to biased conclusions and misleads the audience by not providing a complete and accurate picture of the situation, which requires objective analysis. Here are some examples:

When discussing the impacts of climate change, a common cherry-picking fallacy can be observed in arguments that rely on isolated weather events to refute the broader trend of global warming.

Counterpoint: To accurately assess global warming, one should consider the comprehensive global temperature records over many years, which indicate a clear warming trend, rather than focusing on isolated weather events.

When evaluating the quality of a film, the cherry-picking fallacy often appears in reviews that highlight only the most favorable or unfavorable scenes, ignoring the overall context and balance of the film.

Counterpoint: While the film studio promotes their latest film as a hit by showcasing only positive reviews, this approach is misleading as it ignores the significant number of negative reviews. By presenting a skewed perspective, the studio fails to provide a comprehensive picture of the film’s reception. A truly successful film should be able to withstand scrutiny from all angles, and acknowledge both positive and negative feedback would offer a more honest and transparent evaluation, ultimately building greater trust with the audience.

When discussing school achievement, this fallacy often manifests in arguments that highlight only the top-performing students’ scores while ignoring the broader range of student performance and the various factors affecting overall educational outcomes.

Counterpoint: While the teacher’s method may be effective for the top students, highlighting only their high grades presents an incomplete picture of its overall efficacy. By not mentioning the students who didn’t improve or performed worse, the teacher ignores important data that could indicate flaws or limitations in the method. A truly effective teaching approach should benefit a wide range of students, not just the top performers. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation that includes all students’ outcomes is necessary to accurately assess the method’s overall success.

History

The cherry-picking fallacy has been recognised throughout history, though it has not always been called by this name. In ancient times, philosophers like Aristotle discussed the importance of considering all relevant evidence in forming valid arguments, which touches on the concept of avoiding selective evidence. During the Enlightenment, the emphasis on empirical science and unbiased data analysis highlighted the dangers of selectively presenting evidence. In modern times, the term “cherry-picking” is widely used for evidence that supports a specific argument while ignoring contradictory data. This fallacy remains a significant issue because it creates a biased and misleading picture, which can mislead audiences and hinder informed decision-making.

How does the cherry-picking fallacy work?

Cherry-picking works by selectively presenting only the evidence that supports a particular argument while ignoring any contradictory evidence, resulting in a biased and misleading portrayal. This fallacy involves choosing specific data points, statistics, or examples that align with the desired conclusion and omitting those that do not. This selective presentation creates a skewed narrative, making the argument appear stronger than it actually is. For example, a politician might highlight only the successful policies of their tenure while ignoring the failed ones, or a company might showcase only positive reviews of a product, omitting any negative feedback they might have gotten. This practice manipulates the audience’s perception by not providing a complete picture, leading to misinformed conclusions​.

Similarity with other fallacies

The cherry-picking fallacy shares similarities with several other logical fallacies, as they all involve some form of selective or biased reasoning:

One-Sided Argument (Card Stacking): Similar to cherry-picking, card stacking involves presenting only one side of an argument. This technique is often used in propaganda and advertising to create a biased impression by emphasizing the positive aspects and downplaying or omitting the negatives​.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This fallacy involves drawing a broad conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample. While cherry-picking focuses on selective evidence to support a conclusion, hasty generalization makes broad claims from insufficient evidence, both leading to misleading conclusions​.

Straw Man Fallacy: Although slightly different, the straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. This can be related to cherry-picking when selective parts of an argument are taken out of context to misrepresent the whole​.

Psychology behind the cherry-picking fallacy

Several cognitive biases, which are tendencies that lead to illogical thought patterns, increase our susceptibility to committing or being misled by the cherry-picking fallacy:

The tendency to seek and remember information that confirms our existing beliefs. This bias causes individuals to favour evidence that supports their preconceived notions, making them more likely to cherry-pick data that aligns with their views.

The tendency to perceive what we want or expect to see. This bias affects how individuals interpret information, leading them to notice and focus on data that fits their expectations while ignoring contradictory evidence.

The tendency to overvalue information that is readily available. This bias leads individuals to rely on immediate examples that come to mind, often because they are recent or striking, which can result in the selective use of easily accessible data.

The tendency to depend excessively on initial information for decision-making. This bias causes individuals to give disproportionate weight to the first piece of evidence they encounter, influencing subsequent information processing and leading to the selective use of data that reinforces the initial anchor.

These psychological factors combine to make cherry-picking a common and often unconscious behaviour. Understanding these underlying mechanisms can help individuals recognise and counteract their own biases, leading to more balanced and objective decision-making.

How to respond to the cherry-picking fallacy

Responding to the cherry-picking fallacy effectively involves a few simple steps:

• Identify and call it out: Point out that the argument is based on selective evidence. Clearly state that important contradictory evidence has been omitted.
• Present the missing evidence: Provide the omitted information or data that contradicts the cherry-picked evidence. This helps to balance the argument and show the full picture.
• Explain the importance of context: Emphasize that a comprehensive understanding requires considering all relevant evidence, not just the parts that support a particular view.
• Encourage objective analysis: Suggest looking at the issue from multiple perspectives and evaluating all available data to form a well-rounded opinion.
• Use reliable sources: Refer to credible and unbiased sources that provide a more comprehensive and complete view of the evidence.

By following these steps, you can effectively counter the cherry-picking fallacy and promote a more balanced and objective discussion. You might as well ask your opponent, if there’s anything they need to tell you.

How to avoid this fallacy

To avoid the cherry-picking fallacy, ensure you consider and present all relevant evidence, including data that contradicts your argument. Use comprehensive and unbiased sources, evaluate the quality and context of the information, and transparently explain your methodology. This balanced approach helps in forming a more accurate an credible argument. Here are the relevant points summarized:

• Gather all relevant data and expose gaps: Ensure you gather data from various credible sources, including academic journals, government reports, industry studies, and reputable news organizations. Use primary data (surveys, interviews, experiments) and secondary data (existing research, literature reviews) to build a robust dataset.

• Present both sides and include evidence that contradicts your position: Present a balanced view by outlining the main arguments and evidence supporting both sides of the issue. This involves not only stating your position but also giving a fair representation of the opposing viewpoint.

• Use statistics and cross-check all facts: Utilize relevant statistical methods to analyse your data. This could include descriptive statistics (nasty, median, mode), inferential statistics (regression analysis, hypothesis testing), and visual representations (charts, graphs).

Other names for this fallacy

Below, you’ll find some synonyms for this fallacy:

• Ignoring inconvenient data
• 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