The fallacies of Composition and Division Revisited

Abstract

In the pragma-dialectical conception of argumentation fallacies are defined
as violations of rules that further the resolution of differences of opinion. Viewed within
this perspective, they are wrong moves in a critical discussion. Such moves can occur
in every stage of the resolution process and they can be made by both parties. Among
the wrong moves that can be made in the argumentation stage are the fallacies of composition
and division. They are violations of the critical discussion rule that any argument
used in the argumentation should be valid or capable of being validated by making
explicit one or more unexpressed premises. In this paper the fallacies of composition
and division are analyzed in such a way that it becomes clear that the problem at
stake here is in fact a specific problem of language use. In particular, the criteria are
discussed for deciding when exactly the transference of properties from parts to wholes
(or from wholes to parts) is sound. These criteria relate to the way in which the properties
of relativity/absoluteness and structure dependency/independency involved in
the process are combined. Finally the fallacies of composition and division are characterized
as special forms of strategic maneuvering.