We reason as if the properties of any whole are always (i.e.,
necessarily) properties of each part. But the assumption that what
holds true of a whole is automatically true of its parts cannot be
justified. The form of the argument is: B is part of C and C is D;
therefore B is D.
'How dare you criticize any member of the Harvard faculty?
Don't you know that this faculty has the highest reputation
of any university faculty in the United States?'
