
	Where results make sense

Topic: Affirming the antecedent

Related Topics

Affirming the consequent

Denying the antecedent

Negation

Antecedent

Argument form

Logic

List of topics in logic

Abacus logic

Aristotelian logic

Axiom

Abduction (logic)

Axiomatic system

Abductive validation

Boolean algebra

Predicate

	Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent
		Affirming the Consequent is a non-validating form of argument in propositional logic; for instance, let "p" be false and "q" be true, then there is no inconsistency in supposing that the first, conditional premiss is true, which makes the premisses true and the conclusion false.
		Denying the Antecedent, instances of Affirming the Consequent are most likely to seem valid when we assume the converse of the argument's conditional premiss.
		So, in general, in an instance of the form Affirming the Consequent, if it is reasonable to consider the converse of the conditional premiss to be a suppressed premiss, then the argument is not fallacious, but a valid enthymeme.
	www.fallacyfiles.org /afthecon.html (258 words)

	Terms for Research in Psychology
		Index A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Affirming the Antecedent: In a conditional syllogism, the second premise states that the if part of the first premise is true.
		Affirming the Consequent: In a conditional syllogism, the second premise states that the then part of the first premise is true.
		Deny the Antecedent: In a conditional syllogism, the second premise states that the if portion of the first premise is false.
	psychlab1.hanover.edu /Classes/Research/Terms.html (1934 words)

	Logical Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent
		Together with Affirming the Consequent, this is a fallacy which involves either confusion about the direction of a conditional relation, or a confusing of a conditional with a biconditional proposition.
		Specifically, Denying the Antecedent occurs when a premiss of an argument denies the truth of the antecedent of a conditional premiss, then concludes by denying the truth of the conditional premiss' consequent (see the Form).
		This form of argument is non-validating because, from the fact that a sufficient condition for a proposition is false one cannot validly conclude the proposition's falsity, since there may another sufficient condition which is true.
	www.fallacyfiles.org /denyante.html (300 words)

	UI Critical Thinking Handbook: Chapter Seven -- Theory
		Affirming the Consequent: As we observed in Chapter 6, modus ponens is a valid inference pattern.
		As with affirming the consequent, this fallacy is grounded in the fact that the pattern fails to respect the logic of the conditional.
		True conditionals guarantee the falsity of the antecedent given the falsity of the consequent, because the consequent is a necessary condition on the antecedent.
	www.class.uidaho.edu /crit_think/Chapter-Seven-1.htm (12861 words)

	AffAnt
		Affirming the antecedent - valid form of hypothetical argumentation.
		the antecedent - the minor premise states that conditions described in the antecedent of the
		Another name used for "affirming the antecedent" is modus ponens (Latin: mode that affirms).
	webpages.charter.net /Phil106/AffAnt.html (126 words)

	antecedent - OneLook Dictionary Search
		ANTECEDENT : Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion [home, info]
		Example: "Phrenology was an antecedent of modern neuroscience"
		Phrases that include antecedent: plasma thromboplastin antecedent, denying the antecedent, last antecedent rule, affirming the antecedent, antecedent debt, more...
	www.onelook.com /?w=antecedent (336 words)

	HypothProp
		Mixed Conditionals: In this next conditional the antecedent is in the past and the consequent is in the
		We will use the word "affirm" to mean, "saying the same thing".
		the antecedent of the major premise then the minor premise is saying the same thing as the major
	webpages.charter.net /Phil106/HypothProp.html (708 words)

	newtemplate (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		We call this affirming the antecedent.There are two invalid forms to this argument.
		Conditionals may be nested, that is, one conditional serves as either the antecedent or the consequent of the other.
		This relationship is not directly causal, their plausibility (beyond the formal logical connection relies on some condition inherent in each, either implicitly or explicitly stated, to allow us to give conditional acceptance to the consequent.
	athena.english.vt.edu /~marmstro/dialectic/argconditonals.htm (882 words)

	Thinking and Decision making
		Notice that in the second statement of the problem, the truth of either the antecedent or consequent may be either affirmed or denied.
		It turns out that only two of these forms are valid: affirming the antecedent and denying the consequent.
		The forms in which the consequent are affirmed or the antecedent denied are invalid.
	www.fscwv.edu /users/ffidura/cogpsy/cpthnkng.html (3191 words)

	Modus ponens Summary
		Modus ponens is fairly easy to understand, and seems intuitively to be "common sense." Therefore, when logicians construct systems of logic, they often choose MP as their first, unquestionable rule of inference, using it and their postulated axioms to derive theorems as well as other rules of inference such as transitivity or modus tollens.
		The first premise is the "if-then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true.
		Modus ponens can also be referred to as affirming the antecedent or "Law of Detachment".
	www.bookrags.com /Modus_ponens (636 words)

	Cedar Park Church of Christ Written Debate On Baptism
		Beisner charges me with the fallacy of "affirming the consequent," then changes the argument I made and puts it into his own form in attempting to verify his accusation.
		Beisner has studied and to whom he has reference, but in my limited study of logic, logicians said that in an "if-then" proposition, logical conclusions could be drawn only by affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent.
		The metaphor is in the phrase "born of water and the Spirit" which is the new birth as opposed to a fleshly birth.
	www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org /debate/debater2.htm (2683 words)

	[No title]
		In this case, not being arrested is a sufficient condition to conclude that the subject did not commit a crime.
		Affirming the Consequent is when the argument takes the form: If A then C; C; therefore A. If you commit a crime you will be arrested.
		Affirming the Consequent is when the argument takes the form: If A then C; not A; therefore not C. An example of this is: If you commit a crime, you will be arrested.
	dmc.utep.edu /jferret/humn3302/Logic.ppt (842 words)

	Logic Glossary
		Like denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy.
		The antecedent, or that which goes before, is preceded by the "if"; the consequent, or that which comes after, may be preceded by a "then".
		form, not to be confused with affirming the consequent, modus ponens consists of a conditional statement and one other premise.
	www.philosophy.uncc.edu /mleldrid/logic/logiglos.html (3050 words)

	Persuasive Essay
		The subject section of the major premise (All men, Politicians, Telemarketers) is known as the antecedent; the predicate section of the major premise (are mortal, are crooks, are obnoxious) is known as the consequent.
		The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed when a minor premise equates a specific instance to a consequent.
		The fallacy of denying the antecedent occurs when the minor premises asserts that a specific instance is not an instance of the antecedent.
	edweb.tusd.k12.az.us /sbennett/persuasive_essay.htm (3619 words)

	Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
		If you have enough evidence to affirm the consequent of a conditional and then suppose that as a result you have sufficient reason for affirming the antecedent, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
		A conditional is an if-then statement; the if-part is the antecedent, and the then-part is the consequent.
		The consequent is the then-part, and the antecedent is the if-part.
	www.iep.utm.edu /f/fallacy.htm (13659 words)

	Modus ponens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In logic, modus ponens (Latin: mode that affirms; often abbreviated MP) is a valid, simple argument form.
		The first premise is the "if–then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true.
		A propositional argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Affirming_the_antecedent (381 words)

	Assignment # 10 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		This is a formally invalid argument of the Denying the Antecedent form.
		This is Affirming the Antecedent, which is valid.
		This is a formally valid argument in the form of Affirming the Antecedent.
	web.mala.bc.ca /clemotteo/assignment__10.htm (620 words)

	'Syllogistic Reasoning' from 'Deduction' in 'Clear Thinking'
		therefore S is not X. Valid conclusions are arrived at in (D) and (E) when the antecedent is affirmed or when the consequent is denied, and these conclusions will be true only if the premisses are true.
		Affirming the consequent is a very common source of fallacious reasoning and underlies the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: it assumes that a consequence has only one condition or cause to account for it.
		But if the antecedent is denied, nothing conclusive follows: the effect is similar to that in (f) and in illicit obversion: e.g.
	www.ourcivilisation.com /smartboard/shop/jepsonrw/chap82.htm (2133 words)

	Affirming The Consequent
		Affirming The Consequent is equivalent to the fallacy of Denying The Antecedent, as the above argument can be rewritten:
		The first part of the argument is true by the definition of 'effective' in this context, and the observed lack of attacks was also accurate.
		The conclusion, however, was an example of Affirming The Consequent, and was demonstrated to be false on 7th July 2005.
	www.safalra.com /philosophy/fallacies/consequent (408 words)

	Philosophy and Logic (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		This is a valid argument, an instance of Affirming the Consequent.
		The argument form is not Affirming the Antecedent nor is it Denying the Consequent.
		The invalidity of Affirming the Consequent can be shown as follows: in a valid argument the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; so if an argument form can be constructed with true premises and a false conclusion it cannot be valid.
	www.msu.edu /unit/phl/phlskills/logic.htm (9979 words)

	MISSION: CRITICAL (Review Exercises)
		Valid: affirming the antecedent of a chain argument.
		Even so, the second premise, "You don't do your homework," affirms the consequent (Q), and so the argument is invalid.
		No negative conclusion; the distributed term in the conclusion (Z) is distributed in the second premise; and the middle term (X) is distributed in the first premise.
	www.sjsu.edu /depts/itl/7fall00/part3/p2rev-a3.html (613 words)

	3D Syllogisms
		Affirming the antecedent is quite common in everyday conversation, and is easily recognized.
		Affirming the antecedent is but one example of a form that a syllogism may assume.
		The fallacy of denying the antecedent is another invalid reasoning pattern, arising from confusing an implication with its inverse.
	www.math.hawaii.edu /~hile/math100/logicd.htm (3266 words)

	A little logic
		Once it was shown that the proposed policy (the position supporting universal health care) produced the benefits (that is, affirmed the antecedent), then we would have grounds (reason, justification) to affirm that the policy should be adopted.
		Denying the antecedent is invalid because it does not not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
		Denying the antecedent is NOT valid, because the form does not assure that true premises must lead to a true conclusion.
	www.phil.stmarytx.edu /sauerhm/helps/logic.htm (9162 words)

	[No title]
		the antecedent of that conditional the consequent the negation of the antecedent the negation of the consequent
		the first premise is a conditional and the second premise says that the antecedent of the conditional is true.
		the first premise is a conditional and the second premise says that the antecedent of the conditional is false.
	www.ou.edu /ouphil/faculty/hawthorne/condargs.html (657 words)

	37 Natural Apodosis & Dilemma
		Natural apodosis is deductive argument mainly involving (i) a necessary natural conditional as major premise, and (ii) an actual categorical corresponding to the antecedent or to the negation of the consequent as minor premise, with (iii) an actual categorical corresponding to the consequent or to the negation of the antecedent, respectively, as conclusion.
		Clearly, the rules of quantity here are less restrictive than those of modality; this is because the quantity of antecedent and consequent is one and the same, whereas the modality concerns their relationship.
		Simple constructive natural dilemma consists, as shown below, of premises and conclusion all of which are necessary; the major premise consists of a conditional whose antecedent is a natural disjunction (or, alternatively, of the equivalent conditionals in conjunction), the minor premise is disjunctive, and the conclusion is categorical.
	www.thelogician.net /2_future_logic/2_chapter_37.htm (2167 words)

	Standard logic inferences
		In any implication, the part of the "if" clause is called the "antecedent", and the part in the "then" clause is called the "consequent".
		In "if and only if statements", it is not a fallacy to affirm the antecedent by affirming the consequent and it is not a fallacy to deny the antecedent by denying the consequent.
		The reason is that the antecedent of the "if" clause is the consequent of the "only if" clause.
	www.garlikov.com /teaching/inferences.html (1562 words)

	CD (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		Constructive Dilemma (C.D.) is like a "double" modus ponens in which the first premiss is the conjunction of two implications and the second premiss is a disjunction of the antecedents of the two implications in the first premiss.
		This allows you to infer the disjunction of the two consequents of the two implications in the first premiss.
		from antecedent to consequent, in affirming the antecedent in a constructive dilemma.
	www.loyno.edu /~folse/CD.html (130 words)

	Inference Rules of Natural Deduction
		B is called a conditional, A is the antecedent (premise), and B is the consequent (conclusion).
		Modus Ponens (MP): The original Latin name of the rule is Modus Ponendo Ponens, which means the method (modus) that affirms the consequent (ponendo) by affirming the antecedent (ponens).
		The latin name is Modus Tollendo Tollens, which means by denying (tollendo) the consequent, we deny (tollens) the antecedent of the conditional.
	www.mathpath.org /proof/proof.inference.htm (1383 words)

	Suicide
		But since the antecedent is conjunctive (containing two terms), whatever relation the first term has with the consequent term also applies to the second.
		To deny one term of a conjunctive antecedent is to deny both since whatever relation one term has to the consequent also applies to the other term.
		Both stipulated terms of the antecedent (that a thing must have feathers AND must fly to be a bird) must be met to achieve the consequent.
	members.aol.com /benaiah/BWPD/suicide.htm (2951 words)

	If-Then Arguments
		Discussion : Not exactly affirming the antecedent since "BC is human" is not the antecedent of the "if...
		valid by singular affirming the antecedent, or modus ponens
		affirming the antecedent: valid deductive form, as follows: P; If P then Q; :.
	members.aol.com /wutsamada2/crithink/wilson11.htm (4146 words)

	Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation
		The reason it is called ‘affirming the antecedent’ is that the argument proves that the consequent must be true if the antecedent is affirmed.
		An example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent is using verified predictions as ‘proof’ of a scientific law.
		This demonstrates that it is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
	www.answersingenesis.org /tj/v12/i2/logic.asp (7026 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)