The slanting fallacy occurs when someone deliberately biases something in their favor, e. they omit crucial data, deemphasize negative facts, or overemphasize the positive side of something in order to make the evidence for their argument look better (Web, 2005). The slanting fallacy goes by many other names such as fallacy of exclusion, stacking the deck, exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, incomplete evidence, one-sided assessment, concealed evidence etc. (Suppressed, 2005). The intent is always the same - to make something look like something it is not by not presenting all the facts in a straightforward manner.

             Slanting gives a misrepresentation of the facts because some facts are deliberately hidden so that the individual can support only their own point of view on a topic and ignore anything that does not fit in with their philosophy or beliefs on a particular subject. For instance, a company producing a new drug may suppress evidence that it has caused some health problems because they consider only a few people will suffer from these problems while a large number of people can be helped with the drug, and they can make millions from its sale. This is a slanting fallacy because the company only presents the evidence of the good effects of the drug and not the adverse ones to the public. Politicians do the same thing when they are trying to get a bill through Congress when they just tout its benefits and not what the cost will be or what other programs will have to be cut to pay for it. Slanting is a common fallacy employed by many people for different reasons, but always for their benefit.