Sobre dos tratamientos aristotélicos de los argumentos aparentes: el caso de la Composición y la División

This paper deals with the Aristotelian treatment of two fallacies or deceitful arguments: Composition and Division. First I examine the way in which Aristotle presents these arguments in the Sophistic Refutations (SE), and secondly, I study the presentation of Rhetoric (Rh.), II, 24. This analysis makes clear that in each writing, "Composition" and "Division" are actually referred to arguments with a completely different structure. To this extent, Composition and Division are presented as a particularly clear example of the fact that the treatment of fallacies in Rh. II, 24 is not a mere repetition of what had been studied in SE, but implies a strong innovation, partly dependent on the particular subject matter of rhetorical argumentation.