A logical fallacy in induction where valid evidence that would undermine the conclusion is excluded from consideration. This is what leads to the saying "You can prove anything with statistics".

Example: "The twos will lose, because they've lost 19 of their last 20 games", ignoring that they're playing the ones, who they always beat.

To prove the fallacy, give the missing evidence and show how it changes the conclusion.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.