Mistake Type:
Cherry-Picking
Selecting specific data points, quotations or examples that support one’s argument while ignoring or downplaying those that contradict it, providing a misleading view of the issue at hand.
Examples:
“If the global climate is warming, then how come Antarctica is cooling?”
“Critical race theorist William Tate said in 1997 that objectivity in law is just a mere camouflage for naked racial domination.”
About Cherry-Picking:
Cherry-picking is a deceptive tactic used to bolster an argument by focusing only on the evidence that supports one’s viewpoint while conveniently overlooking or disregarding any evidence to the contrary. The chosen data points or quotes are often taken out of context, isolated from other relevant information, or presented in a way that distorts their actual meaning or significance.
The complex nature of science- or data-driven topics allows for statistics and quotes to be easily taken out of context and manipulated to support one’s agenda. Cherry-picking public statements to argue that the other side is unreasonable is particularly common. Many TV campaign ads, for example, find the most egregious quotes from opposition figures and use them to paint an extreme, one-sided picture.
Cherry-picking misinforms the audience, providing them with a skewed understanding of the topic at hand.
A constructive response to cherry-picking is to ask for additional evidence or context that supports the issuer’s claim. Pointing out the omitted data or contextual information can also help to balance the argument and provide a more accurate picture of the situation; this is why cherry-picking backfires so easily, despite its continual use. However, doing so requires a level of expertise or knowledge about the topic, which may be a barrier for some audience members.