This file addresses a highly important intellectual and methodological issue related to the risk of falling into the trap of misleading logic when analyzing needs and making decisions. It explains how conclusions that appear logical and convincing on the surface can lead to incorrect decisions if they are based on incomplete or biased data. The report is grounded in a solid scientific approach that connects analytical thinking with decision-making practices, drawing on a well-known historical example from World War II concerning the analysis of damage to military aircraft. It illustrates how engineers initially relied only on examining aircraft that returned from combat missions, which resulted in an incomplete understanding of the actual situation. The file highlights the concept of survivorship bias, showing that visible data does not always represent the full reality and may conceal more critical unseen factors. The report then moves to a pivotal shift in reasoning led by the statistician Abraham Wald, where logical inference was rebuilt by questioning what was missing from the data rather than focusing solely on what was present. It clarifies that areas of the aircraft that appeared less damaged were not safer, but in fact more vulnerable, because damage in those areas prevented the aircraft from returning at all. The content demonstrates how correcting this flawed reasoning led to more accurate and effective decisions that directly improved outcomes and reduced losses. The report further links this case to modern project management methodology, emphasizing the importance of clearly defining the problem, understanding constraints, identifying data gaps, and correcting the definition of need before allocating resources. It stresses that rushing into decisions often produces solutions that fail to change results, no matter how logical they may initially seem. The file concludes with a profound message that the quality of a decision depends not only on the strength of the visible evidence, but also on the soundness of the reasoning process that produced it and the ability to ask the right question before searching for the answer.