diagnosis of mental illness. The media portrayal of successful examples may be cherry picking; many other people with similar conditions who do not get suitable employment remain unnoticed. Business law Survivorship bias can raise truth-in-advertising problems when the success rate advertised for a product or service is measured with respect to a population whose makeup differs from that of the target audience whom the company offering that product or service targets with advertising claiming that success rate. These problems become especially significant when the advertisement either fails to disclose the existence of relevant differences between the two populations or describes them in insufficient detail; and these differences result from the company's deliberate "pre-screening" of prospective customers to ensure that only customers with traits increasing their likelihood of success are allowed to purchase the product or service, especially when the company's selection procedures or evaluation standards are kept secret; and the company offering the product or service charges a fee, especially one that is non-refundable or not disclosed in the advertisement, for the privilege of attempting to become a customer. For example, the advertisements of online dating service eHarmony.com pass this test because they fail the first two prongs but not the third: They claim a success rate significantly higher than that of competing services while generally not disclosing that the rate is calculated with respect to a viewership subset of individuals who possess traits that increase their likelihood of finding and maintaining relationships and lack traits that pose obstacles to their doing so (1), and the company deliberately selects for these traits by administering a lengthy pre-screening process designed to reject prospective customers who lack the former traits or possess the latter ones (2), but the company does not charge a fee for administration of its pre-screening test, with the effect that its prospective customers face no "downside risk" other than losing the time and expending the effort involved in completing the pre-screening process (negating 3). See also Anthropic principle Availability heuristic Fooled by Randomness Lindy effect Malmquist bias Meta-analysis Multiple comparisons problem Selection principle Texas sharpshooter fallacy References Sampling (statistics) Informal fallacies Bias Cognitive biases