What fallacy is demonstrated when the state superintendent claims teachers don’t need benefits due to salaries in other states?

The claim made by the state superintendent reflects the fallacy known as Selected Instances. This occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on a limited amount of evidence that does not represent the entirety of a situation. In this case, by highlighting salaries in other states, the superintendent overlooks various crucial factors such as the overall benefits package, cost of living variations, and the educational context within each state. This selective use of information can mislead others into thinking that higher salaries negate the need for benefits, without acknowledging that benefits play a significant role in overall compensation and teacher satisfaction. The fallacy emerges because the argument relies on an incomplete picture, rather than examining a comprehensive set of data regarding teacher compensation.