Support The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ █ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████████
The author concludes that Dalton can’t be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates, because his primary specialization is in divorce cases, while the firm’s is in criminal defense cases.
This is the cookie-cutter “confusing whole vs. part” flaw, otherwise known as the fallacy of division. The author assumes that, because something is true of a group as a whole, it must also be true for one part or member of that group. In other words, he assumes that, just because the firm specializes in criminal defense and Dalton does not specialize in criminal defense, Dalton cannot be a member of the firm.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
offers in support ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████████
overlooks the possibility ████ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ █ ██████ ██ █ ███ ████
concludes that someone ██ ███ █ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ █ ██████████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ███
takes a high ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
states a generalization █████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████