The Fallacy of Composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Conversely, the Fallacy of Division occurs when one infers that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. Both fallacies were described by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations. Show Fallacy of composition The logical form of the Fallacy of Composition is: Premise 1: A is part of B Premise 2: A has property X Conclusion: Therefore, B has property X. Two examples of this fallacy are:
Athletic competitions are examples of zero-sum games, wherein the winner wins by preventing all other competitors from winning. Another example of this fallacy is:
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of faulty generalisation, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. In economics, the Paradox of Thrift is a notable fallacy of composition that is central to Keynesian economics. Division of labour is another economic example, in which overall productivity can greatly increase when individual workers specialize in doing different jobs. In a Tragedy of the Commons, an individual can profit by consuming a larger share of a common, shared resource such as fish from the sea; but if too many individuals seek to consume more, they can destroy the resource. In the Free Rider Problem, an individual can benefit by failing to pay when consuming a share of a public good; but if there are too many such ‘free riders’, eventually there will be no ‘ride’ for anyone. Fallacy of division The Fallacy of Division is the converse of the Fallacy of Composition. The logical form of the Fallacy of Division is: Premise 1: A is part of B Premise 2: B has property X Conclusion: Therefore, A has property X. An example the fallacy of division is:
If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. [edit] Formal fallaciesA formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs. [edit] Propositional fallaciesA propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions. [edit] Quantification fallaciesA quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion. [edit] Formal syllogistic fallaciesSyllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. [edit] Informal fallaciesInformal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.
[edit] Faulty generalizationsFaulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
[edit] Red herring fallaciesA red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
[edit] Conditional or questionable fallacies
[edit] See also
The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below. [edit] External links |