Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies ~ Composition


Contents

  • How to Use This Guide
  • Search
  • Privacy and Security
  • Contact
  • Home Page
  • All Fallacies
  • The Fallacies

  • False Dilemma
  • Argument From Ignorance
  • Slippery Slope
  • Complex Question
  • Appeal to Force
  • Appeal to Pity
  • Appeal to Consequences
  • Prejudicial Language
  • Appeal to Popularity
  • Anonymous Authorities
  • Coincidental Correlation
  • Attacking the Person
  • Appeal to Authority
  • Converse Accident
  • Style Over Substance
  • Unrepresentative Sample
  • Hasty Generalization
  • False Analogy
  • Slothful Induction
  • Fallacy of Exclusion
  • Accident
  • Joint Effect
  • Genuine but Insignificant Cause
  • Wrong Direction
  • Complex Cause
  • Begging the Question
  • Irrelevant Conclusion
  • Straw Man
  • Equivocation
  • Amphiboly
  • Accent
  • Composition
  • Division
  • Affirming the Consequent
  • Denying the Antecedent
  • Inconsistency
  • Fallacy of Four Terms
  • Undistributed Middle
  • Illicit Major
  • Illicit Minor
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
  • Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
  • Existential Fallacy
  • Subverted Support
  • Non-Support
  • Untestability
  • Limited Scope
  • Limited Depth
  • Too Broad
  • Too Narrow
  • Composition

    Category:

    Definition: Because the parts have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

    Examples:

    Proof:

    Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.

    Show that the properties in question are the properties of the whole, and not of each part or member or the whole. If necessary, describe the parts to show that they could not have the properties of the whole. (Barker: 164, Copi and Cohen: 117)


    Created by Stephen Downes, Copyright 2023 CC By-NC-SA