An inductive argument can be weakened by new facts. This fallacy hides the fact that would do it.
Key idea
Suppressed evidence leaves out an important fact that would change the conclusion, so true premises lead to a misleading conclusion.
Why it works
Inductive support depends on all the evidence we have. A trail can be "only two miles long" and still be a terrible walk for small children if it climbs a cliff. Each stated fact is true; the conclusion is unreliable because of what was left out.
Worked example: What was left out?
"This snack has no added sugar, so it is a healthy snack." (It is deep-fried and very salty.)
- The premise is true.
- But frying and salt matter for health, and they were left out.
Answer: Suppressed evidence.
Worked example: Nothing hidden
"The trail is two miles long, mostly flat, with benches every half mile. So it is a good walk for little kids."
- What would a parent want to know? Length, steepness and places to rest.
- All of those are given, and nothing important seems hidden.
Answer: Not a fallacy.
Common mistake
Checking only whether the stated premises are true. A set of true premises can still mislead when a key fact is left out. Ask: what else would I want to know before accepting this?