Affirming The Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur
- If A is true, then B is true.
- B is true.
- Therefore, A is true.
Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.
An example of affirming the consequent would be:
- If Jackson is a human (A) then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
- Jackson is a mammal. (B)
- Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)
While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: 'Jackson' could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises - it is a 'non sequitur'.
Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.
Read more about this topic: Non Sequitur (logic)
Famous quotes containing the words affirming the, affirming and/or consequent:
“A large part of the popularity and persuasiveness of psychology comes from its being a sublimated spiritualism: a secular, ostensibly scientific way of affirming the primacy of “spirit” over matter.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“A large part of the popularity and persuasiveness of psychology comes from its being a sublimated spiritualism: a secular, ostensibly scientific way of affirming the primacy of “spirit” over matter.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“There is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people’s safety and greatness.”
—Grover Cleveland (1837–1908)