Fallacy of Exclusion

Definition:
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive
argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement
that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".

Examples:
(i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones
will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that
Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton
vote Liberal or N.D.P.)

(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've
won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came
over last place teams, and today they are playing the first
place team.)

Proof:
Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the
outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not
sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was
included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will
change the conclusion.

References
Davis:115
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm

Fallacy of Exclusion
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm

Definition:
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is
excluded from consideration.

The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".

Examples:

(i) Jones is Albertan,
and most Albertans vote Tory,
so Jones will probably vote Tory.
(The information left out is that Jones lives in Edmonton,
and that most people in Edmonton vote Liberal or N.D.P.)

(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've
won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came
over last place teams, and today they are playing the first
place team.)

Proof:
Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the outcome of the
inductive argument.

Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the
evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will
change the conclusion.

References
Davis: 115