A claim that McGraw-Hill's growth indicates their products are superior is an example of which fallacy?

The claim that McGraw-Hill's growth indicates their products are superior exemplifies the division fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for its individual parts. In this case, the argument suggests that because McGraw-Hill, as a whole, is growing, it can be assumed that all of its products must also be superior.

This reasoning fails to acknowledge that a company's overall success can result from a variety of factors unrelated to the quality of its individual products, such as effective marketing strategies, market demand, or even pricing strategies. The growth of the company does not logically necessitate the superiority of all its offerings. Therefore, the assumption drawn from the company's overall performance misrepresents the relationship between the whole and its parts, making it a clear instance of the division fallacy.