Discussion
Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning that
most closely resembles the flawed reasoning used in
the argument above?
*This question is included in Sample Lesson Set 3: Difficult Questions, question #1
| (A) | All students who study diligently make good grades. But some students who do not study diligently also make good grades. Jane studies somewhat diligently. Therefore, Jane makes somewhat good grades. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 08/08/2012 15:46
Hi, I answered the question correctly, however I don't see how the fallacy of composition applies
Posted: 09/09/2012 19:22
Hi, Khiree -
This particular phrasing of the Fallacy of Composition is a little confusing in this context. A better phrasing for our purposes might be something like "The Fallacy of Composition assumes that the characteristics of any given part of a composite are directly represented in the whole."
In other words, the fallacy covers not only simple part-to-whole errors like "bicycle tires are round, therefore bicycles are round," but also errors about how opposing characteristics might combine, e.g., "I don't like anchovy pizza, but I do like maple syrup, therefore I would like anchovy pizza better if I put maple syrup on it.". The original argument and answer 'B' are both of the latter type.
If you still have questions, or if this explanation isn't clear, please feel free to post again!
Best,
Lyn
This particular phrasing of the Fallacy of Composition is a little confusing in this context. A better phrasing for our purposes might be something like "The Fallacy of Composition assumes that the characteristics of any given part of a composite are directly represented in the whole."
In other words, the fallacy covers not only simple part-to-whole errors like "bicycle tires are round, therefore bicycles are round," but also errors about how opposing characteristics might combine, e.g., "I don't like anchovy pizza, but I do like maple syrup, therefore I would like anchovy pizza better if I put maple syrup on it.". The original argument and answer 'B' are both of the latter type.
If you still have questions, or if this explanation isn't clear, please feel free to post again!
Best,
Lyn
Posted: 09/09/2012 19:32
Actually, technically, my variation is not the purist's "Fallacy of Composition" as it is usually stated, but a slight generalization of it. As such, it should arguably be given (or may already have) another name. However, the point of the problem is to see the parallel between the two errors -- as you evidently did -- rather than to assign any particular label to it.
Best,
Lyn
Best,
Lyn
Posted: 08/25/2013 09:02
If you have a cheap car, then put expensive rims on it. The car would now be expensive because it takes the value of the rims into it. This is because the idea of a "car" includes the rims. Therefore if you put expensive rims on the car the car is now expensive. Imagine if you had a Honda civic then slowly replaced all the parts so that the parts are equal to the of a Lamborghini. How is that wrong?
Posted: 08/30/2013 12:27
Brendan, your comment is about an example in the explanation. In your specific example, it may be true because let's say you put a diamond-studded steering wheel in the Honda Civic.
But, you cannot generalize it to be true in ALL cases. In most cases, even if you replace the parts with more expensive parts (relatively speaking), the Honda Civic will still be less valuable than the Lamborghini.
But, you cannot generalize it to be true in ALL cases. In most cases, even if you replace the parts with more expensive parts (relatively speaking), the Honda Civic will still be less valuable than the Lamborghini.