[SmartCitizen]

The attributes of a part that is part of the whole are attributes of the whole.

Here is the specifics of the fallacy of Composition for your edification:

Definition:

Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.

Examples:

(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are six feet tall.

(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.

(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)

Proof: Show that the properties in question are the properties of the whole, and not of each part or member or the whole. If necessary, describe the parts to show that they could not have the properties of the whole.

References

(Barker: 164, Copi and Cohen: 117)

[ml1954]

Good at Google I see.

Note that in (i) and (ii) an attribute of the whole is cited first. An attribute of the whole is cited first and then it is pointed out that the parts do not have that attribute.

In (iii), there really is no whole.

Your logic is backwards.