## What is affirming the consequent in psychology?

Affirming the consequent is a term taken from mathematics/logic that exists as a test of “proof” of a conclusion derived from a logical argument.

**What is affirming the consequent in an argument?**

Affirming the consequent is a fallacious form of reasoning in formal logic that occurs when the minor premise of a propositional syllogism affirms the consequent of a conditional statement.

**What is an example of affirming?**

The definition of affirmation is the act of confirming something to be true, or is a written or oral statement that confirms something is true. An example of affirmation is reminding a child that she is smart.

### What is the difference between affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent?

Affirming the antecedent (or Modus Ponens) involves claiming that the consequent must be true if the antecedent is true. Denying the consequent (or Modus Tollens) involves claiming that the antecedent must be false if the consequent is false. Both of these can be used in a valid argument.

**What is consequent example?**

The definition of consequent is something that follows as a result, or logically follows. An example of consequent is a burn from pulling something out of the oven without using an oven mitt. An example of consequent is two coming after one.

**What is a consequent fallacy?**

The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when a person draws a conclusion that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true. The consequent is the ‘then’ part of a conditional statement, though at times you won’t see the word ‘then’ used.

#### What is consequent in critical thinking?

“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens. No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will be INVALID.

**What is affirming the consequent example?**

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 …

**What is affirming the consequent examples?**

## Is affirming the consequent a fallacy?

Affirming the consequent – otherwise known as a ‘converse error’ – is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows: If X is the case, then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be true as well.

**What is called consequent?**

A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows “then”. In an implication, if P implies Q, then P is called the antecedent and Q is called the consequent.

**Why is affirming the consequent not a fallacy of scientific reasoning?**

The reason it is a fallacy to use affirming the consequent is just that the argument is deductively invalid. The lesson is this: if you have a true conditional, then you cannot derive the truth-value of the antecedent from the truth of the consequent.