Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

67
 questions about 
Feminism
571
 questions about 
Philosophy
104
 questions about 
Art
151
 questions about 
Existence
31
 questions about 
Space
124
 questions about 
Profession
75
 questions about 
Perception
87
 questions about 
Law
51
 questions about 
War
217
 questions about 
Education
36
 questions about 
Literature
32
 questions about 
Sport
2
 questions about 
Action
2
 questions about 
Culture
110
 questions about 
Biology
364
 questions about 
Logic
77
 questions about 
Emotion
68
 questions about 
Happiness
27
 questions about 
Gender
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
220
 questions about 
Value
54
 questions about 
Medicine
284
 questions about 
Language
34
 questions about 
Music
75
 questions about 
Beauty
133
 questions about 
Love
243
 questions about 
Justice
38
 questions about 
Race
1268
 questions about 
Ethics
24
 questions about 
Suicide
58
 questions about 
Abortion
67
 questions about 
Truth
96
 questions about 
Time
153
 questions about 
Sex
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
4
 questions about 
Economics
282
 questions about 
Mind
81
 questions about 
Identity
23
 questions about 
History
43
 questions about 
Color
88
 questions about 
Physics
167
 questions about 
Freedom
208
 questions about 
Science
391
 questions about 
Religion
79
 questions about 
Death
107
 questions about 
Animals
116
 questions about 
Children
69
 questions about 
Business
58
 questions about 
Punishment

Question of the Day

The fallacy of composition is drawing conclusions about the whole from facts about the parts when the facts about the parts don't support the conclusion. Obvious case: every cell in my body weighs less than a pound. But that doesn't support the conclusion that I weigh less than a pound. The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy: you can't tell whether it's been committed just by looking at the form of the inference while ignoring the content.

In any case, the inference you're considering isn't a conclusion about a particular car—a whole—based on premises about its parts. It's a conclusion about all or most cars of a certain sort based on facts about some cars of that sort. This doesn't count as a part/whole relationship in the sense relevant for potential cases of the fallacy of composition. "Chevy cars" aren't a whole in the relevant sense.

On the other hand, it would be hasty to generalize about Chevies based on a sample of two. So yes: hasty generalization.

A footnote, however: even people who've taught informal logic are often bad at naming fallacies; I certainly am. That's because the names aren't really important. What's important is being able to say what's gone wrong. Saying that an argument commits a petitio principii or the homunculus fallacy (I didn't know what that was either until five minutes ago) won't help most people unless they already know what these terms mean. And most of the time, they won't.