Consider this argument: 'Each member of the review panel is an expert in her own subject. The panel as a whole is therefore bound to deliver an expert judgement on a question that runs across all their subjects.' Which of the following makes the same questionable move?

The original carries a property of each part over to the whole, forgetting that the whole raises a question - one spanning several subjects - that no single expert was chosen to answer. The ingredient argument does exactly this: liking each ingredient separately says nothing about liking them combined. The first option runs the move the other way, from whole to part, while the second argues from past to future and the third makes an unrelated leap.