The graphical display is a useful tool for presenting data to the viewer in a more accessible way. However, often this technique can be used incorrectly, resulting in misleading. An example of such a case would be when the authors of a graphical display are cherry-picking. Schuller-MartĂnez et al. (2021) call this phenomena “the fallacy of incomplete evidence” (para. 15). Cherry-picking occurs when the authors of a graphical display choose to present only information that supports their argument. Conversely, data that does not openly speak in favor of a particular point of view or the context of a situation is ignored. The use of such a presentation of incomplete evidence can lead to serious consequences that confuse the viewer.
Graphic display, in this case, allows the reader to imagine and visualize the phenomenon being described quickly. When applying cherry-picking, the viewer is forced to perceive a limited set of data that the author wanted to present. This situation can lead to the creation of a misconception about the phenomenon, as well as to outright fallacy. In particular, this technique can be used to emphasize a certain point of view, which does not allow the viewer to assess the situation in context. The main ramification that may arise in this example is the presentation of false information to the viewer. Cherry-picking puts the viewer within the framework set by the author and does not allow seeing the whole picture of the phenomenon. In the case of scientific data, this approach devalues ​​both qualitative and quantitative information. It is necessary to present the data in the context of a wider spectrum so that the viewer can appreciate the long-term dynamics.
Reference
Schuller-MartĂnez, B., Meza, N., PĂ©rez-Bracchiglione, J., Franco, J., Loezar, C., & Madrid, E. (2021). Graphical representation of the body of the evidence: the essentials for understanding the evidence gap map approach. Medwave, 21(3). Web.