Below are four flawed logical arguments and four abstract descriptions of reasoning errors. Match each argument on the left with the precise description of its composition or division flaw on the right.
- Every player recruited for the new Apex esports team is known for their highly aggressive and individualistic playstyle. Consequently, the Apex team itself will be characterized by a highly aggressive and individualistic playstyle.Concludes that a collective group possesses a certain behavioral attribute solely on the grounds that every individual comprising that group possesses that attribute.
- The newly constructed Zenith skyscraper is structurally robust and capable of withstanding extreme aerodynamic pressure. It follows that the individual glass panels covering the building's exterior must also be capable of withstanding extreme aerodynamic pressure.Illicitly presumes that a functional capacity of an entire complex object must necessarily be shared by each of the distinct physical components that make up that object.
- Each individual ingredient used to brew this traditional medicinal potion is highly toxic to humans in large doses. Thus, the final potion created by combining these ingredients must also be highly toxic to humans.Takes for granted that a compound entity will have a specific hazardous characteristic simply because each of the separate elements used to form it has that characteristic.
- The global shipping conglomerate, Maritime United, is highly profitable and possesses enormous liquid assets. Therefore, the small, local tugboat subsidiary owned by Maritime United must also be highly profitable and possess enormous liquid assets.Infers that an attribute characterizing a large-scale institution as a whole must also apply to a smaller subset or branch within that institution.
Answer
L1 matches R2 (individuals to collective group), L2 matches R3 (complex object to physical components), L3 matches R4 (separate elements to compound entity), and L4 matches R1 (institution to subset).
Each argument provided demonstrates a textbook example of either the fallacy of Composition or the fallacy of Division. By isolating the direction of the logic (is the author moving from the parts to the whole, or from the whole to the parts?) and noting the specific entities involved (individuals vs. groups, elements vs. mixtures, physical parts vs. objects, subsets vs. institutions), each argument maps cleanly to exactly one abstract description.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Distinguishing between Composition (Part-to-Whole) and Division (Whole-to-Part) fallacies, and mapping concrete scenarios to precise abstract logical descriptions.