Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as: X is true for A. X is true for B. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc. While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.
[12] [24] The fallacy of composition is committed if one infers from the fact that each member of a group has a property that the group as a whole has this property. [24] For example, "[e]very member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher", therefore "[i]t was an excellent investigative team". [3]
hasty generalization An informal fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence; drawing a general conclusion from a too-small sample size. Henkin semantics A generalization of standard first-order semantics that allows for models where the range of quantifiers can be restricted, named after Leon Henkin.
The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows: . A occurred, then B occurred.; Therefore, A caused B. When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverse holds: believing that avoiding A will prevent B.
In rhetorical terms, the Keynesians assert that the "Paradox of Thrift" is a Fallacy of Composition and the Austrians label it a Straw Man argument.99.2.114.66 23:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) The theory known as "the paradox of thrift" is surely describing a fallacy of composition, but is not itself a fallacy of composition. The theory could be ...