Non Sequitur (logic) - Affirming The Consequent

Affirming The Consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

  1. If A is true, then B is true.
  2. B is true.
  3. 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:

  1. If Jackson is a human (A) then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
  2. Jackson is a mammal. (B)
  3. 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)

    “It is by teaching that we teach ourselves, by relating that we observe, by affirming that we examine, by showing that we look, by writing that we think, by pumping that we draw water into the well.”
    —Henri-Frédéric Amiel (1821–1881)

    “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)