Is Affirming The Antecedent Valid? - Fixanswer

In committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, one makes a conditional statement, affirms the consequent, and concludes that the

antecedent is true

. … Affirming the antecedent of a conditional and concluding its consequent is a validating form of argument, usually called “modus ponens” in propositional logic.

Is denying the antecedent valid or invalid?

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 wrong?

Affirming the consequent is

an invalid argument because its premises do not guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion

. As seen above, there is a flaw in the argument’s structure because it uses erroneous conditional logic, and it is this flaw that renders the conclusion invalid.

What is an example of affirming the consequent?

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 the antecedent in an argument?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. An antecedent is

the first half of a hypothetical proposition, whenever the if-clause precedes the then-clause

. In some contexts the antecedent is called the protasis.

What is an example of denying the antecedent?

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.

What is the difference between antecedent and consequent?

As adjectives the difference between consequent and antecedent. is that consequent is following as a result,

inference, or natural effect

while antecedent is earlier, either in time or order.

Can you deny the antecedent?

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a

formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement

. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

What is an example of affirming?

1a :

validate, confirm He was affirmed as a candidate

. b : to state positively He affirmed his innocence. 2 : to assert (something, such as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed The court affirmed his conviction.

Is affirming the consequent sound?

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 the difference between affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent?

There are two related incorrect and inconsist constructions: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Affirming the Consequent: “

If A is true, then B is true

. … Denying the Antecedent: “If A is true, then B is true.

What is an antecedent in an argument and what does it mean to deny it?

(also known as: inverse error, inverse fallacy) 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

.

Is the consequent or conclusion?

Conclusion

: that statement which is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions (the premises) of the argument. Conditional statement: an “if p, then q” compound statement (ex. If I throw this ball into the air, it will come down); p is called the antecedent, and q is the consequent.