Affirming the consequent

In propositional logic, 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 must be broken"), even though that statement may not be true. This arises when the consequent ("the room would be dark") has other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off" or "there is no lamp in the room"). Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes. The opposite statement, denying the consequent, is called modus tollens and is a valid form of argument. Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P. This fallacy can be summarized formally as or, alternatively, . The root cause of such a logical error is sometimes failure to realize that just because P is a possible condition for Q, P may not be the only condition for Q, i.e. Q may follow from another condition as well. Affirming the consequent can also result from overgeneralizing the experience of many statements having true converses. If P and Q are "equivalent" statements, i.e. , it is possible to infer P under the condition Q. For example, the statements "It is August 13, so it is my birthday" and "It is my birthday, so it is August 13" are equivalent and both true consequences of the statement "August 13 is my birthday" (an abbreviated form of ). Of the possible forms of "mixed hypothetical syllogisms," two are valid and two are invalid. Affirming the antecedent (modus ponens) and denying the consequent (modus tollens) are valid.

About this result

This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.

Related concepts (7)

Related courses (1)

Related lectures (9)

Inference Rules in Propositional Logic CS-101: Advanced information, computation, communication I

Covers inference rules in propositional logic and common logical fallacies.

Propositional Logic: Inference Rules and Valid Arguments CS-101: Advanced information, computation, communication I

Covers inference rules in propositional logic and common logical fallacies.

Square Roots and Irrationality

Explores even squares, irrationality of √2, gaps in rational numbers, and minorants in Q.

MATH-381: Mathematical logic

Branche des mathématiques en lien avec le fondement des mathématiques et l'informatique théorique. Le cours est centré sur la logique du 1er ordre et l'articulation entre syntaxe et sémantique.

In propositional logic, modus tollens (ˈmoʊdəs_ˈtɒlɛnz) (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument.

In propositional logic, modus ponens (ˈmoʊdəs_ˈpoʊnɛnz; MP), also known as modus ponendo ponens (Latin for "method of putting by placing"), implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore Q must also be true." Modus ponens is closely related to another valid form of argument, modus tollens. Both have apparently similar but invalid forms such as affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and evidence of absence.