Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...
In logic and mathematics, the converse of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two constituent statements. For the implication P → Q, the converse is Q → P. For the categorical proposition All S are P, the converse is All P are S. Either way, the truth of the converse is generally independent from that of ...
One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with an example that has true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:
Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy or the inverse fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equated with its inverse; that is, given two events A and B, the probability of A happening given that B has happened is assumed to be about the same as the probability of B given A, when there is actually no evidence for this assumption.
The inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically equivalent to each other, just as the conditional and its contrapositive are logically equivalent to each other. [1] But the inverse of a conditional cannot be inferred from the conditional itself (e.g., the conditional might be true while its inverse might be false [2]). For example ...
Sir Paul McCartney has big plans for 2025.. On Saturday, Dec. 21, the Beatles musician, 82, answered a series of fan questions on his website, including what his New Year's resolution is — to ...
Amid growing anxieties surrounding reported drone sightings, the FBI has issued a warning against a new trend of pointing lasers at aircrafts.
Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy. Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.