Faulty Comparison Brocolli example

Hello, 

I do not understand the first example of the faulty comparison and explanation. 

Example #1:

Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!

Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to faulty comparison.

Why is it a faulty comparison? In that statement is not assumed or saying is better or worse. What is wrong with just comparing the fats? It seems to me is more a fact than a fallacious statement. If I say, "Elephants are bigger than flies" I am also ignoring other significant differences besides size. I am not saying that elephants are better or worse than any fly. I am just saying that they are bigger. 

Would be that example a faulty comparison also compared with the Brocolli example?

Thank you, 

I see what you mean, this example isn't super clear. There is a widespread notion, at least here in the US, that foods with less fat in them are healthier for you. This isn't universally true, as nutrition is a lot more complicated than that, but it's a common enough belief that food companies will routinely advertise their products as low fat, or lower in fat than some alternative. So, in this case, it's not just a neutral comparison, that statement is meant to imply that broccoli is healthy and therefore good.

Hello,

Thank you for your question. Let's delve into the concept of faulty comparisons and how they apply to the broccoli example you mentioned.

### Faulty Comparison in Broccoli Example

**Example #1: **
*Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!*

**Explanation: **
While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to faulty comparison.

### Analysis of the Faulty Comparison

**1. Context Matters:**
- **Different Categories:** Broccoli and candy bars belong to different categories of food. Broccoli is a vegetable typically noted for its health benefits, while candy bars are considered sweet treats or desserts known for providing quick energy and satisfying sweet cravings.
- **Purpose:** The two foods serve markedly different roles in nutrition. One is primarily consumed for its vitamins, fiber, and health benefits, while the other is often consumed as an indulgent treat.

**2. Selective Comparison:**
- **Just One Aspect:** Focusing solely on fat content is selective and ignores other nutritional parameters like sugar content, protein, vitamins, minerals, and fiber, which are important when evaluating overall health benefits.
- **Missing Context:** The statement doesn't consider the holistic nutritional profile. While broccoli might contain less fat, it is also lower in sugars and calories and higher in vitamins and fiber compared to a candy bar.

### Addressing Your Point
**"Elephants are bigger than flies" Comparison:**

- **Similarity to Broccoli Example:** You mentioned that saying "elephants are bigger than flies" seems similar because it focuses only on size, ignoring other differences like diet, habitat, and biological structure.
- **Non-Nutritional Comparison:** This comparison primarily states a simple observable fact (size difference) and usually doesn't imply any judgment beyond that. It is a straightforward factual comparison without an underlying agenda or bias.

**Why Broccoli Example is Different:**
- **Nutritional Expectations:** The statement about broccoli and candy bars could infer a judgment that broccoli is healthier by highlighting a single nutritional metric (fat content). This can be misleading if the reader assumes that less fat alone equals healthier, ignoring the broader nutritional context.
- **Implicit Bias:** There is an implied recommendation that might lead people to choose broccoli over candy bars solely based on fat content, which is an incomplete basis for making such a decision.

### Conclusion
The broccoli example is considered a faulty comparison because it selectively highlights the fat content without considering the broader nutritional framework and the different roles these foods play in a diet. On the other hand, stating "elephants are bigger than flies" is typically a factual statement with no underlying implication promoting one over the other.

I hope this helps clarify why the broccoli and candy bar comparison is seen as faulty and how it differs from a simple factual statement like the elephant and fly size comparison.

Thank you,