The fallacy of denying the antecedent occurs when someone incorrectly claims that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. **The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when someone incorrectly claims that if the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true**.

Contents

## What kind of fallacy is affirming the consequent?

Affirming the consequent is a **fallacious form of reasoning in formal logic** that occurs when the minor premise of a propositional syllogism affirms the consequent of a conditional statement.

## What is an example of denying the antecedent fallacy?

**If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone.** **If he has no gun, then he will not kill anyone**. If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not work hard you will not get a good job.

## Why is this fallacy called denying the antecedent?

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true.

## What is an example of affirming the antecedent?

For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars entered by the front door that they must have forced the lock. Also called modus ponens.

## What is the difference between affirming the antecedent and denying the consequent?

Affirming the antecedent (or Modus Ponens) involves claiming that the consequent must be true if the antecedent is true. Denying the consequent (or Modus Tollens) involves claiming that the antecedent must be false if the consequent is false. Both of these can be used in a valid argument.

## What is the meaning of affirming the antecedent?

‘Affirming the antecedent’ or ‘Modus ponens’ is **a logical inference which infers that “if P implies Q; and P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true.”**

## What is affirming the consequent examples?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., “**If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark”**), and invalidly inferring its converse (“The room is dark, so the lamp …

## Why is the fallacy of affirming the consequent a fallacy?

The fallacy of affirming the consequent **occurs when a person draws a conclusion that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true**. The consequent is the ‘then’ part of a conditional statement, though at times you won’t see the word ‘then’ used.

## What is an example of denying the consequent?

For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars did not force the lock that they did not enter by the front door. Also called modus tollens.

## What is fallacy of denying the hypothesis?

a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is **an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q**. For example: Show that if x is irrational, then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start with: “Assume that x is rational.

## What is the meaning of modus ponens and modus tollens?

There are two consistent logical argument constructions: modus ponens (“**the way that affirms by affirming**“) and modus tollens (“the way that denies by denying”). Here are how they are constructed: Modus Ponens: “If A is true, then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true.”

## Is denying the antecedent valid?

For an argument to be valid, though, it has to be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus, **denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form**.

## Why is affirming the consequent a fallacy?

The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs **when a person draws a conclusion that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true**. The consequent is the ‘then’ part of a conditional statement, though at times you won’t see the word ‘then’ used.

## Is affirming the consequent a valid argument form?

**Affirming the consequent is a valid argument form**. An argument of this form—If p, then q; p; therefore, q—is called modus ponens. An argument of this form—If p, then q; not p; therefore, not q—is called modus tollens. This argument form known as modus tollens is valid.

## Is affirming the consequent modus tollens?

The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus tollens was Theophrastus. Modus tollens is closely related to modus ponens. **There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument**: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

## How do you identify affirming the consequent?

“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens.**4.** **Affirming the Consequent**

- If A then B. …
- If A then B. …
- If I have the flu then I’ll have a fever. …
- If there’s no gas in the car then the car won’t run.

## What is an example of denying the consequent?

For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars did not force the lock that they did not enter by the front door. Also called modus tollens.

## Is denying the antecedent valid?

For an argument to be valid, though, it has to be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus, **denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form**.

## What is fallacy of denying the hypothesis?

a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is **an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q**. For example: Show that if x is irrational, then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start with: “Assume that x is rational.

## What is the antecedent fallacy?

A person falls prey to the anecdotal fallacy **when they choose to believe the “evidence” of an anecdote or a few anecdotes over a larger pool of scientifically valid evidence**. The anecdotal fallacy occurs because our brains are fundamentally lazy. Given a choice, the brain prefers to do less work rather than more.

## What is affirming the hypothesis?

Affirming the Hypothesis (antecedent): **If one gets a college degree, then one can get a good job**. Marilyn has a college degree. Marilyn can get a good job. Valid (modus ponens) Affirming the Conclusion (consequent): If one gets a college degree, then one can get a good job. Marilyn gets a good job.

## What is affirming the consequent examples?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., “**If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark”**), and invalidly inferring its converse (“The room is dark, so the lamp …

## Why is denying the consequent valid?

Like modus ponens, modus tollens is a valid argument form because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, like affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form because **the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion**.