Sweeping Generalization vs Composition

I understand the difference between a Sweeping Generalization (aka Accident Fallacy) and a Hasty Generalization. I also understand the difference between the fallacies of Composition and Division, which are also inverse examples of each other.

But what's the difference between a Sweeping Generalization and a Fallacy of Composition? What about a Hasty Generalization and Fallacy of Division? They look the same to me.

Are Sweeping Generalization and Composition just two names for the same fallacy? And do Hasty Generalization and Division similarly describe the same fallacy?

Thanks.

This is the same question one of my schoolmates asked in our logic class. The examples you gave can explain the difference if they are analyzed in more detail.

Anteaters ARE mammals.

Mammals ARE MADE OUT OF atoms.

While anteaters are one type of mammal, atoms are what build mammals, they make up the whole mammal. Parts of a whole are not the same as a set of all individual cases of an object.

In Sweeping generalization and Hasty generalization it is a problem of inference about the whole species (whole species = all cases) on the basis of only some cases of a given species.

Fallacy of division and Fallacy of composition are about identifying a whole and its parts. The whole is not a simple sum of its parts. Sodium and chloride are toxic, but sodium chloride is not.

I hope I have clarified the difference. Read the definitions of these fallacies from this site, and if it is not clear to you again, ask what confuses you.