Explore BrainMass

Denying the Antecedent and Affirming Consequent

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

What is the definition of the two formal fallacies: denying the antecedent and affirming consequent? Provide examples. Thank you.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 9:19 pm ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview


Good question! Let's take a closer look through definition and example.


1. What is the definition of the two formal fallacies: denying the antecedent and affirming consequent?

A classification of fallacy that is widely accepted is the classification of fallacies into two groups "formal fallacies and informal fallacies". Formal fallacies are arguments that have an invalid logical form with respect to the rules of propositional logic. Conversely, informal fallacies are linguistic in nature and are embedded in the context, meaning, and textual content of the argument.,+Denying+the+antecedent+and+affirming+consequent%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Denying the antecedent and affirming consequent are formal fallacies of propositional logic.

1. Denying the antecedent is defined as a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form. It is a Fallacy of Propositional logic, which is a system which deals with the logical relations that hold between propositions taken as a ...

Solution Summary

Provides definitions and examples of the two formal fallacies: denying the antecedent and affirming consequent.

Similar Posting

What is the fallacy and definition of the Hypothetical Syllogism

I am trying to learn and EASILY identify fallacy types... Deny the Consequent, Deny the Antecedent (invalid) etc.

Here are a few examples along with my initial response, but it doesn't appear that I got them right (although I don't know what the correct answer would be). Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

I thought this was Denying the Consequent:

If I master critical thinking then I will be a better employee
I am not a better employee
Therefore, I did not master critical thinking.

I thought this would be Deny the Antecedent:

If I can master critical thinking
then, I will be a better employee
I haven't mastered critical thinking
therefore I am not a better employee.

For the next statement I thought it contained two fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance and Appeal to Authority.

Rhymes' lawyer, Robert Kalina, told the judge, "I can tell you, judge, my client is innocent, and I rarely say this in a courtroom." He added that the accuser had no discernible injuries other than one red mark on his face.

View Full Posting Details