This question is incomplete. I've found the complete question online. It is as follows:
Paul hypothesizes that individuals who eat breakfast are better at math than those who don't. After running his study, he includes only the results from participants who were in advanced math courses, even though overall, breakfast did not predict being better at math. What is this called?
A.The rationalization trap
B. Cherry-picking data
C. Post-hoc data
D. Cognitive dissonance
Answer:
What Paul is doing is called B. cherry-picking data.
Explanation:
We can reach a conclusion by elimination.
The rationalizations trap consists of a series of justifications with the purpose of reducing dissonance, which can lead to an immoral behavior. This is unrelated to what was described in the instructions.
<u>Cherry-picking data consist of ignoring a portion of data while focusing only on what particularly confirms what one is trying to prove. That is coherent with what Paul is doing. He chose to ignore the part of the study that focused on participants who were not in advanced math courses. He only included the results from those who were.</u>
Post-hoc data consists of analyzing the results of a study that has already been concluded in order to find patterns that were not the initial purpose of that study. This is unrelated to the case in question.
Finally, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort people feel when their attitudes and their behaviors are not aligned. Again, this has no connection with the case.
