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 …
What is an example of affirming?
We cannot affirm that this painting is genuine. They neither affirmed nor denied their guilt. laws affirming the racial equality of all peoples They continued to affirm their religious beliefs. The decision was affirmed by a higher court.
How do you identify affirming the consequent?
Affirming the consequent is a fallacious form of reasoning in which the converse of a true conditional statement (or “if-then” statement) is said to be true. In other words, it is assumed that if the proposition “if A, then B” is true, then “if B, then A” is true as well. Thus, its logical form is: If X, then Y.
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 meaning of fallacy of the consequent?
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 consequent example?
The definition of consequent is something that follows as a result, or logically follows. An example of consequent is a burn from pulling something out of the oven without using an oven mitt. An example of consequent is two coming after one. adjective. 1.
Is affirming the consequent sound?
Arguments with this form are generally invalid. This form of argument is called “affirming the consequent”. Basically, the argument states that, given a first thing, a second thing is true. It then AFFIRMS that the second thing is true, and concludes from this that the first thing must also be true.
What is fallacy of affirming the antecedent?
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 antecedent and consequent?
A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows “then”. In an implication, if P implies Q, then P is called the antecedent and Q is called the consequent. In some contexts, the consequent is called the apodosis.
Which of the following is an example of a fallacy of affirming the conclusion?
a fallacy of affirming the conclusion is an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by starting with assuming q and proving p. For example: Show that if x+y is odd, then either x or y is odd, but not both. A fallacy of affirming the conclusion argument would start with: “Assume that either x or y is odd, but not both.
Why is affirming the consequent confusing?
Modus ponens is a valid argument form in Western philosophy because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
What is the consequent in a sentence?
following as an effect or result. 1. Our use of harmful chemicals and the consequent damage to the environment is a very serious matter.
How do you use consequent in a sentence?
How to use Consequent in a sentence
- The course of the upper Mississippi river is largely consequent i upon glacial deposits. …
- Her conduct excited popular indignation; and the consequent disorders, amounting almost to civil war, gave an opportunity to the ambition of Andronicus.
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 it possible to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent in a pure hypothetical syllogism?
Is it possible for a single syllogism both to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of denying the antecedent? No, unless the second premise and the conclusion each assert two different propositions.
What are two examples of hypothetical syllogism?
An example in English: If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid.