Argument from composition

The Toronto Leaf Hockey team is good because all the hockey players in the team are good.

The subjects are different and the predicates are the same, so the argument form is beta (a is X because b is X): “The Toronto Leaf Hockey team (a) is good (X) because all the hockey players in the team (b) are good (X)”.

Both the conclusion and the premise are universal statements (u), so the argument substance is ‘uu’: “The Toronto Leaf Hockey team is good (u) because all the hockey players in the team are good (u)”.

The keyword COMPOSITION describes the relationship between subjects a and b. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “The Toronto Leaf Hockey team (a) is COMPOSED of all the hockey players in the team (b)”.

Other examples

Notes

One could argue that the Toronto Leaf Hockey team is a singular statement (s). In the context of the argument, however, it is a cognitive shorthand for “all the hockey players in the team”. For this reason, the subject type is universal (u) instead of singular (s). See also the argument from division, where the same choice is made.

One could imagine a similar argument type with a particular statement (p) as a premise: “The Toronto Leaf Hockey team is good (u) because most of the hockey players in the team are good (p)”. However, since the substance is ‘up’, this argument type would have to be placed in a different group of the Beta Quadrant.