Package-deal fallacy

The package-deal fallacy (also known as false conjunction) is the logical fallacy of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. False conjunction refers to misuse of the and operator.

It is particularly common in political arguments, such as the following imagined example from the United States: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those four positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in United States politics, a person may believe in one "conservative" idea while not believing in another.

• "John likes surprises, so he'll enjoy finding a snake in his sleeping bag."

Assumes a surprise is inherently a good thing does not consider the actual context of an event.

• "Droughts are common during summers in Country X, so water is hard to find there in August."

It hasn't rained in Country X for a while, but there may well be plenty of water reserves available. Also, seasons are different between the two hemispheres; if Country X is in the southern hemisphere, August will be in winter. Lastly, just because droughts are common in summer in country X does not mean they must occur every summer. That August may have been one of the summers a drought did not occur.

• "A child molester was caught in a nearby neighborhood. He was friends with many of his neighbors. Everyone in that whole neighborhood is sick."

Assumes that the neighbors knew that their friend was a sex offender and implies their endorsement of such activity. Assumes guilt by association under incidental circumstances.

The package-deal argument does not need to be a fallacy when used to argue that things grouped by culture and tradition are likely to be grouped in a given way.

• "John enjoys science fiction films, so chances are he'll enjoy Star Wars."

While it is not guaranteed that John will like Star Wars, we can tell from information about him that he probably will.

• "There has been a serious drought in Country X for a while, and it is not very developed, so many of its inhabitants are probably starving."

Most developing countries do face famine when drought occurs, so it is likely that this is the case in Country X, even if it is not guaranteed.

Philosopher Ayn Rand used the term to describe a different fallacy in which essentially different concepts or ideas are “packaged” together and treated as though they are essentially similar.

Rand wrote: "'Package-dealing' is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or 'package,' elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance, or value."

It is important to stress that the package deal fallacy concerns solely those errors of reasoning which mistreat the essential characteristics of concepts.

Rand pointed out that, in popular usage, the term “selfishness” constitutes a package deal because it’s used as a moral evaluation, even though no such evaluation is contained or implied in the word’s meaning:

Some modern dictionaries define selfishness and/or self-interest in line with popular usage. Merriam-Webster lists this definition of the former: “the quality or state of being selfish; a concern for one’s own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others.” Rand pointed out that this definition is self-contradictory because true concern for one’s own welfare (a state of genuine wellbeing) requires mutually beneficial relationships with others and so precludes unfair treatment or disregard of them:

Rand also identified altruism as a package deal when it is regarded as synonymous with or integral to morality:

Identifying behaviors and double standards common in virtually all modern societies, Rand offered the following examples of ways in which the beneficiary of an action is often used as a standard of moral judgment:

Many people conflate political power and economic power, which are wholly different concepts.

Political power is the ability to legally employ or threaten physical force against others, typically via legislation, regulation, or taxation. Possible penalties for noncompliance, such as fines, arrest, and imprisonment, are ultimately backed by a threat of physical force.

Economic power, by contrast, is characterized primarily by the absence of physical force; buyers and sellers exchange goods and services voluntarily or not at all. Lumping together economic and political power under the broader concept “power” while ignoring the crucial differences between them constitutes a package deal.

• List of fallacies
• Critical thinking
• Psychology of reasoning
• Availability heuristic
• Illusory correlation
• Stereotyping

• Bennett, Bo, "Package-Deal Fallacy", Logically Fallacious, retrieved 15 October 2014
• Sternberg, Meir (2011), "Reconceptualizing Narratology. Arguments for a Functionalist and Constructivist Approach to Narrative", Enthymema, 4: 35–50, doi:10.13130/2037-2426/1186, ISSN 2037-2426, I think there is a basic psychological reason, namely, the human tendency to the opposite of the Proteus Principle, what I call the package-deal fallacy. It is simply convenient to say «X goes with Y», «form A goes with function A1», «form B goes with effect B1». The world then looks orderly, safe.
• Sternberg, Meir (1998), Hebrews between Cultures: Group Portraits and National Literature, Indiana University Press, p. 158, ISBN 0-253-11328-8, [...] a tendency to overconnection among essentially independent variables [...] [w]hat I call the Package Deal Fallacy [...]