Fallacies of illicit transference
A fallacy of illicit transference is an informal fallacy occurring when an argument assumes there is no difference between a term in the distributive (referring to every member of a class) and collective (referring to the class itself as a whole) sense.[1]
There are two variations of this fallacy:[1]
- Fallacy of composition – assumes what is true of the parts is true of the whole. This fallacy is also known as "arguing from the specific to the general."
- Since Judy is so diligent in the workplace, this entire company must have an amazing work ethic.
- Fallacy of division – assumes what is true of the whole is true of its parts (or some subset of parts).
- Because this company is so corrupt, so must every employee within it be corrupt.
While fallacious, arguments that make these assumptions may be persuasive because of the representativeness heuristic.
References
- 1 2 Hurley, Patrick (2014), A Concise Introduction to Logic (12th ed.), Cengage Learning, pp. 161, 172, ISBN 978-1-285-96556-7
See also
- Existential fallacy
- Ecological fallacy
- Fallacy of the undistributed middle
- Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
| Equivocation | |
|---|---|
| Question-begging fallacies | |
| Correlative-based fallacies | |
| Fallacies of illicit transference | |
| Deductive fallacies | |
| Inductive fallacies | |
| Vagueness / ambiguity | |
| Questionable cause | |
| |
This article is issued from
Wikipedia.
The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike.
Additional terms may apply for the media files.