Fallacy of composition

The fallacy of composition claims that if the parts of a whole have a property, then the whole must have it too.

Example

“Each player is excellent. Therefore the team is unbeatable.”
(Coordination and strategy do not follow from individual quality alone.)

Applied example (political)

“Each ministry performed well, therefore the government is flawless.”
(Global evaluation can differ.)

Applied example (mystical)

“Each testimony is positive, therefore the practice is infallible.”
(The whole can include bias or unreported failures.)

Why it is fallacious

• The whole can have properties different from its parts.
• Interaction and organization effects emerge.
• It confuses sum of attributes with system behavior.

How to spot it

• The whole is inferred from individual cases.
• Structure and relations are ignored.
• Isolated examples are used to describe a system.

How to respond

• Ask for evidence about the whole’s performance.
• Point out interactions and emergent conditions.
• Evaluate the system as a system, not only its parts.