The safest way for an individual to leave a burning theater is to run for the nearest exit; it is therefore also the best means
of escape for a large audience. This illustrates the: A) "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy. B) correlation fallacy. C) fallacy of composition. D) fallacy of limited decisions
In sociology, the fallacy of composition refers to a bias that induces that something is true for a group (or for a whole) when it is true for a person/member of the group (or part of the whole). In other words, it assumes that if it's valid for one person, then it must be valid for the whole group.
In this example, we are told that <u>the safest way for an individual to leave a burning theater is to run for the nearest exit (this is true for a person),</u> and then it proceeds to tell us that<u> therefore this must be the best means of escape for a larger audience (it must be true for the whole group).</u> This second part isn't true because if the whole audience runs to the nearest exit then they wouldn't be able to escape but would ended up trapped inside the theater. Therefore, this illustrates the Fallacy of composition.
Fallacy of composition can be defined as the error of assuming that what is true of an audience is true for the group of people as a whole.
It arises when one infers that the safest way for an individual to leave a burning theater is to run for the nearest exit; it is therefore also the best means of escape for a large audience. This is a fallacy of composition.
Because in absolute monarchy the process of being the king is you need to have the blood of former king so people stared seeing that the king wasn’t a person sent by the gods
