"You never see a Ferrari rust like a Honda"

#1
When someone says "You never see a Ferrari rust like a Honda", the logical flaw is that a Honda is typically used as daily drivers thru severe winters, while a Ferrari is a 2nd or 3rd car limited to sunny weekend use.

Obviously, you must control for variables such as mileage and weather condition. Is there a name for this fallacy? Logical Fallacy? Base rates fallacy? Differences in groups being compared?
 

Englund

TS Contributor
#2
Availability bias or recency bias would probably explain the fallacy quite well. You seldom see a rusty Ferrari but quite often a rusty 'standard car'. But I disagree that the statement in itself is a logical fallacy - it is a correct statement (atleast if you switch "never" to "seldom").

A possibly incorrect statement based on the data at hand would be: "Ferraris are more resistant to rust."
 

Dason

Ambassador to the humans
#3
But I disagree that the statement in itself is a logical fallacy - it is a correct statement.
Exactly. I was going to bring up that point. The statement is fine - if there is a fallacy it's in how the statement is used. Which fallacy would depend on which statement is attempted to be derived from the fact.
 

noetsi

Fortran must die
#4
I think a fallacy is that few ever see a Ferrari at all. Therefore the statement is not accurate for much, probably most, of the public.

I know little of cars but I assume the make up of higher end Ferrari's differs significantly from the metal in a Honda. Some of the more expensive cars are made of advanced composites that probably don't (can't) rust at all. I doubt you see a rusting Abrahams or T-94....
 
#5
Ok, you guys are sticklers! Yes, the actual statement is sort of true since you actually don't see many Ferraris in the first place.

So, what is the conclusion on a statement like this:
"Ferrari have better rust prevention than a Honda" (based on biased anecdotal evidence comparing garage queens with 10k miles and daily drivers with 200k miles)

Confounding variable of mileage? Seasonal usage?
 

Outlier

TS Contributor
#6
As an aside:
assuming a huckster made this statement, he/she cannot be accused of lying
(and wants to avoid statements that wouldn't fool the average fourth grader)
since he or she is letting the reader or listener draw
(probably wrong)
conclusions about the durability of that car.

False statements are a separate issue.

For more, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman
http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201005/top-ten-secrets-effective-liars
 
#7
We have already established that the statement is true. However, what fallacy is being employed when someone claims "Ferrari have better rust prevention than a Honda", based on biased anecdotal evidence comparing garage queens with 10k miles and daily drivers with 200k miles)
 

Outlier

TS Contributor
#9
"
Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy]
and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[3][4]
"
and I've heard that many anecdotes still don't make reliable data.