The slothful induction fallacy denies an inductive arguments' proper conclusion despite strong evidence for interference. The phrase “despite overwhelming evidence” is an indication that someone is about to commit this fallacy. This fallacy is also called appeal to coincidence.
For example, after someone got into 10 car accidents within the last month, it is clearly due to their own rashness, negligence, and horrible driving skills. Nevertheless, they insist the accidents were a result of something else- which is very improbable. Hence this fallacy is flawed. These accidents are truly their fault but believe they are just consequences.
In other words, evidence suggests A results in B, yet the person in question believes B was caused by something other than A.
Another example of this fallacy is when someone receives a bad grade on a test, they believe the poor grade is due to forgetting to wear their lucky socks, not the fact that they did not prepare for the test.