Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
We commit the fallacy of composition when we mistakenly impute the attributes of a part
of a whole to the whole itself.
The argument being made is that because every part has some characteristic, then the
whole must necessarily also have that characteristic.
This is a fallacy because not everything that is true about every part of an object is
necessarily true of the whole, much less about the entire class that the object is part of.
When someone offers an argument like the above and you are skeptical that it is valid, you need
to look very closely at the content of both the premises and the conclusion. You may need to ask
that the person demonstrate the necessary connection between an attribute being true of the parts
and it also being true of the whole.
Example: Each member of the Dela Cruz family is paying their income tax. Therefore all income
of Dela Cruz family is taxable.
Explanation: This is fallacious because it assumes that since each of the members of the is
paying their income taxes, taxes is already attributable to all of the income derive by the family.
These examples help demonstrate the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. The
error isn't recognizable simply by looking at the structure of the arguments being made. Instead,
you have to look at the content of the claims. When you do that, you can see that the premises
are insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the conclusions.
-END-
REFERENCES:
http://www.unc.edu/~ramckinn/Documents/NealRameeGuide.pdf
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/fl/Logical-Fallacy-Composition.htm