COMPOSITION NOTE: Now that we have learned the fallacy of

composition (i.e when one infers that the whole has the
- So the fallacy of composition is an error in
same qualities as its constituent parts without any
reasoning that arises in the content of an
justification), it is important, however, to note that this
argument
type of reasoning doesn’t always lead to false
- They commit this error when they draw
conclusions.
conclusions about the whole from truths about
its constituent parts without having a justification For example:
for doing so
In no. 1) “6 is an even number. 4 is an even number.
- That is, “when you apply properties of parts of a
6+4=10. Therefore, 10 is an even number.” The premises
whole to the whole itself”
and the conclusion are in fact, all correct. So even if it
- What’s wrong with this line of reasoning is that
used this kind of reasoning, no fallacy was committed.
“without sufficient justification, we cannot infer
that the whole has the same qualities as its parts
simply because the parts have that quality. It may
be the case that the whole lacks the qualities the -------------
parts have.”

Logical Form:
A has property X.
A is part of whole B. COMPOSITION (PPT)
Therefore, whole B has property X.
-informal fallacy

-arises in the content of an argument (rather than the

For example:
structure like amphiboly)
1) “3 is an odd number.
7 is an odd number. -happens when we assume that the whole has the same
3 + 7 equals 10. qualities as its parts
Therefore, 10 is an odd number.”

it’s true that the numbers “3” and “7” are both odd
numbers. That’s a given fact. We might say that they
have the characteristic of being odd. Both numbers
are part of the number “10”. 3+7=10. But we cannot
say that the number 10 is odd simply because its
parts, 3 and 7, have that quality of being odd. We all
know that 10 is an even number. If we did, we would
commit this fallacy of composition.

2) “A tire is made of rubber. A vehicle has tires.

Therefore, the vehicle is made of rubber.”

This is fallacious because vehicles are made with a variety

of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.

3) “Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound.

Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound”

This is fallacious because obviously, weight is cumulative.

So the bldg’s weight equals to the sum of the weight of
each brick that building is composed of. Obviously, way
more than a pound.
DIVISION Avoiding Fallacies

- The fallacy of composition is the opposite of the
fallacy of division
- This fallacy is committed when one infers that
what is true for the whole is true of its parts.
- What’s wrong with this reasoning is that the
parts may lack the properties that the whole has.
(so while the premises are true, the conclusion
MAY not be possible.)
- Concluding that the parts have the same
properties as the whole
Logical Form:
Whole B has property X.
A is part of whole B.
Therefore, A has property X
Informal fallacies can seriously interfere with our ability
to arrive at the truth. Whether they are committed
inadvertently in the course of an individual's own
thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to
manipulate others, each may persuade without providing
legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. But
knowing what the fallacies are affords us some
protection in either case. If we can identify several of
the most common patterns of incorrect reasoning, we
are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled
by anyone else.

For example:

1) “The constitutional law book by cruz is heavy.

Therefore, all of the pages must be heavy.”

It should be clear why that’s a problem. Bcoz a single

page is not heavy, doesn’t even weigh close to 10 grams
(a shocker?)

2) “MSU-IIT became the top 1 performing school in the

2017 electronics engineering licensure exam. Dave is one
of the takers from MSU-IIT. Therefore, Dave must be the
top 1 among the examinees.”

This is erroneous because while MSU-IIT may have

clinched the top 1 perf school award, it does not follow
that an MSU-IIT grad is the top 1, he may or may not be
from the topnotchers’ list.

3) “Dogs are common. Japanese Chins are dogs.

Therefore, Japanese Chins are common.”

It is true that dogs, collectively, are common, but to infer

that a certain breed of dog is common commits the
fallacy of division. (Japanese Chins are regarded as the
rare gems of the east, owned only by Japanese nobilities
for centuries)

BASICALLY, fallacy of composition goes from parts to

whole. While division goes from whole to parts.