A person commits the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence when an arguer intentionally omits relevant data.
- Pattern: 'The arguer asserts Q therefore P -- where Q indeed provides good evidence for Q and omits R, S, T . . . which provide better evidence against P'
'In this video hear the voice of a man who has been executed for a crime he did not commit (the murder of a police man). He begins to tell his story about how he got there and what crime he was charged with. In this case he was blamed for the murder of a young cop. He goes on to tell us that years after he was charged with the death penalty his nephew admitted to seeing his father (the man's brother) shoot the cop. He ends the video asking the viewers if we believe that he is innocent or guilty. He says that he knows he is innocent but we have made up our own conclusions. He tells the viewers that whatever we conclude about him, we can come and tell him in person. All of a sudden the camera shows a grave with a picture next to a wooden cross and he says that is where he was buried eight years ago when his sentence was carried out. The final words on the video say, “The death penalty. The only injustice that can’t be put right.” There are views that the reasons not to eliminate the death penalty outweigh the fact that it is an “undoable justice.” This video leads the viewer to believe that most people on death row did not truly commit the crime they are being charged of which isn’t the case. “DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.” Also “it gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.”�The video is hiding the facts of why we do have the death penalty in place, therefore committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence'.
Marijuana Two-Minute Truths
The ad talks about the addiction of Marijuana. Throughout the video Nydia Swaby from the Marijuana Policy Project provides compelling arguments for the leglaization of marijuana. For example, she argues that although 65.1% of people in a drug rehab are there for marijuana use, most were forced into getting treatment as an alternative to criminal penalties. The ad commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence because it excludes equally numerou and equally compelling arguments against legalization, like, for example, the fact that marijuana has been shown to have long term effects on the hippocampus, amygdale, reaction time, and has been known to lead to more powerful drugs.
Make Marijuana Legal
The ad shows a group of adults passing a joint to each other and stating their reasons as to why they smoke (i.e. back pain, headaches, for fun). The principal figure in the ad then elates some statistics about marijuana. For example, he states that “over 700,000 Marijuana arrests were made just last year not counting manufacturing.” He then states that marijuana arrests represent a crippling cost to local, state and federal government. He concludes that Obama should “legalize this harmless drug.” This ad commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence because it leave out countervailing evidence, such as the facts that marijuana can seriously affect a person's development, affecting the hippocampus, lungs, and immune system.