Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 7:
Line 7: − +
no edit summary
If all the parts of a whole must share in a property in order for the whole to have that property, then it is not a fallacy to note that any individual part has that same property as the whole. As an example, ''if'' all of the parts of an object must be invisible for the object as a whole to be invisible, one can assume that a part of an invisible object is itself invisible.
If all the parts of a whole must share in a property in order for the whole to have that property, then it is not a fallacy to note that any individual part has that same property as the whole. As an example, ''if'' all of the parts of an object must be invisible for the object as a whole to be invisible, one can assume that a part of an invisible object is itself invisible.
The opposite of the fallacy of division is the '''fallacy of composition'''.
The opposite of the fallacy of division is the [[fallacy of composition]].
[[Category: Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category: Logical Fallacies]]