Fallacy of Composition -This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made

from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. Example: You like the taste of fried chicken. You like the taste of coffee. Therefore, you like the taste of fried chicken mixed with coffee. Reason: - one indicates that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole. Fallacy of Division - Indicating that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. Example: I heard that senator in the senate was involved in a sex scandal cover-up. The entire senate is corrupt! Reason: - Just because a member of the Senate is corrupt, does not mean that the whole Senate is corrupt. Biased Generalization - Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is. Example: Pastor Jaime: People are turning to God everywhere! 9 out of 10 people I interviewed said that they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Villanueva: Where did you find these people you interviewed? Pastor Jaime: In my church. Reason:

- Pastor Jaime has drawn a conclusion about religious beliefs from people everywhere based on people he has interviewed in his church. Thats like concluding that the world likes to dance naked in front of strangers after interviewing a group of strippers. Hasty generalization - a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation. Example: Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand. Therefore, it must be great. Reason: - It turns out, that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random sampling of 1000 dentists were polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four out of five result was not necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey, it just happened to be a statistical anomaly common among small samples. False Dilemma - When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exist between two extremes. Example: I thought you were a good person, but you werent at church today. Reason: - The assumption here is that bad people dont go to church. Of course, good people exist who dont go to church, and good church-going people could have had a really good reason not to be in church -- like a hangover from the swingers gathering the night before. Guilt by Association - When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively. Example: Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically. Reason:

- Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious. Middle Ground - Asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct. Example: Ok, I am willing to grant that there might not be angels and demons really floating around Heaven or hanging out in Hell, but you must grant that there has to be at least one God. Is that a fair compromise? Reason: - There is no compromise when it comes to truth. Truth is truth. If there are angels, demons, and God, there are angels, demons, and God. If there arent, there arent. Compromise and splitting the difference works fine in some cases, but not in determining truth.