Advanced lesson on fallacies involving selective use of evidence and data. Students learn to recognize when evidence is selected to support a predetermined conclusion, when patterns are imposed on data after the fact, when data collection is influenced by convenience rather than relevance, and when memorable examples substitute for systematic evidence.
Selectively presenting evidence that supports a position while ignoring, suppressing, or downplaying evidence that contradicts it. This creates a misleading impression by showing only part of the available evidence, presenting the strongest case for one side while omitting weaknesses or contrary data.
Cherry-picking clusters or patterns in data after the data is collected, then treating those patterns as if they were predicted in advance. Named after a joke about a Texan who shoots at a barn and then paints bullseyes around the bullet holes to appear to be a sharpshooter. This involves defining the hypothesis to fit the data rather than testing a pre-defined hypothesis.
Searching for answers or evidence only where it is easiest to look, rather than where the answer is most likely to be found. Named after the joke about a drunkard searching for his keys under a streetlight not because he lost them there, but because that's where the light is. This involves letting convenience or availability of data determine what is studied rather than relevance to the question.
Judging the frequency, probability, or importance of something based on how easily examples come to mind, rather than on actual statistical frequency or objective measures. Events that are more memorable, recent, vivid, or emotionally charged are judged as more common or likely than they actually are.