Logical Fallacy- Composition Fallacy

Composition Fallacy

A composition fallacy or Compositio cado in Latin, occurs when a conclusion is drawn when facts are not presented on both sides. There are two types of composition fallacies that are called by the same name because they are so similar. There first type uses the characteristics of a small part of something and makes a conclusion based on those characteristics for the larger thing that it makes up. Some examples of this include:

Cells can only be seen under the microscope.
Living creatures are made up of cells,
Therefore living creatures can only be seen under the microscope.
Or
The air-conditioner on the car doesn’t work, therefore the car doesn’t work.

The second type of composition fallacy uses the characteristics of some individuals of a group and makes conclusion based on those characteristics for the entire group. Examples of this are:

Some people failed the test, therefore everyone failed the test.
Or
The workers from Ontario decided to go on strike, therefore, World Wide, the workers went on strike.

These examples are obviously fallacious because the characteristics of a small part of something don’t necessarily mean those characteristics are portrayed in the larger objects. Also, individuals don’t always have the same characteristics as the whole group.

Syllogism
First Type
Parts of object X have characteristics A, B, C, D...
Therefore object X has characteristics A, B, C, D...

Second Type
Individuals from group X have characteristics A, B, C, D...
Therefore as a whole group X has characteristics A, B, C, D...

Media Example

Although there is no concrete example of a composition fallacy in the text the point the author (Jonah Goldberg) is trying to make is fallacious. He says that given the recent non-conserative policies made by President George W. Bush that President Bush is in fact a liberal.

This is fallaicious because he has been in office for 4 years and has made many policies that favour both sides. And there are many other divisions not only liberal and conserative.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU2NTMzOWUzMzNhMmZjYzU2YmUzY2JmYmYzOTU5Zjg=