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

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.