What conclusion does Russell argue regarding the fallacy of composition?

Russell's discussion on the fallacy of composition emphasizes that one cannot make judgements about a whole based solely on its individual parts. This reasoning highlights the distinction between what can be concluded about parts and what can be concluded about the whole. For example, just because each member of a team contributes a certain skill does not mean that the team as a whole will perform effectively. Thus, the conclusion is that whole entities should not be judged merely by the characteristics or behavior of their parts.

This understanding counters any oversimplified claims that may arise by assuming that the nature of the whole can mirror or derive directly from the nature of its components, reinforcing the importance of considering larger contexts and interactions that transcend individual attributes.