This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 3.4. Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Grammatical Analogy Two Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy Arguments that commit this fallacy are grammatically analogous to non-fallacious arguments. 1. Composition 2. Division 1. Composition- An arguer commits the fallacy of composition when she argues that some whole has a particular property because the parts of that whole have the property.- Examples: 1. The earth is made up of unobservable subatomic particles. Therefore, the earth is unobservable. (property of being unobservable) 2. I can lift every brick in this building. So I can lift this building. (property of being such that I can lift it) 3. All of the players on the team are over six feet tall. Therefore, the team is over six feet tall. (property of being over six feet tall.)- Each of these arguments is fallacious because it transfers a property had by the parts of some whole to the whole itself: - Sometimes properties do transfer from parts to a whole. 1. Every brick in this building has mass. Therefore, this building has mass. 2. Each part of this chair is wooden. So this chair is wooden.-Caution: Note that composition is sometimes confused with hasty generalization. Recall that hasty generalization is committed when an arguer infers that every member of a class or group has a property on the basis of some non-representative sample of...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/01/2010 for the course PHIL 1000 taught by Professor Crystal during the Spring '07 term at LSU.
- Spring '07