#fallacy of composition

fallacy of composition- assuming that something true of a part of a whole (erections in corpses and those with ED) must be true of the whole (Biological sexual arousal responses)

cherry picking- using individual cases (induced erections in those with ED and corpses) to confirm a whole position, while ignoring other data that may contradict or weaken this position (other chemical injections may cause erections, histamine is involved in many non- allergy processes)

hasty generalization- basing a broad conclusion (one about all sexual arousal) on a small or unrepresentative sample (some induced erections)

Fallacy of the single cause- it is assumed that there is one simple cause of an outcome (histamine) when in reality it may have been caused by a number of causes 'working together'

Many of the arguments I encountered on Peter Kreeft’s list suffered from similar fatal problems. In general, they were based on fallacious thinking or misunderstood science and defended with rhetoric rather than fact. Here’s the full list again, with the two flaws I see as fatal or at least extremely weakening for each argument: The Argument from Change – poor understanding of science, fallacy…

Examples

No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.

If someone stands up out of their seat at a cricket match, they can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up, they can all see better.

Some people have survived every type of cancer. (Implying that there are individuals who have had, and have survived, every type of cancer.)

If a runner runs faster, he can win the race. Therefore, if all the runners run faster, they can all win the race. (Athletic competitions are examples of zero-sum games, wherein the winner wins by preventing all other competitors from winning.)

In voting theory, the Condorcet paradox demonstrates a fallacy of composition: Even if all voters have rational preferences, the collective choice induced by majority rule is not transitive and hence not rational. The fallacy of composition occurs if from the rationality of the individuals one infers that society can be equally rational. The principle generalizes beyond the aggregation via majority rule to any reasonable aggregation rule, demonstrating that the aggregation of individual preferences into a social welfare function is fraught with severe difficulties (see Arrow's impossibility theorem and social choice theory).[citation needed]