enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

    Another example is: If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress. I am not President. Therefore, I cannot veto Congress. [This is a case of the fallacy denying the antecedent as written because it matches the formal symbolic schema at beginning. The form is taken without regard to the content of the language.]

  3. Modus ponens - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

    The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday.

  4. Affirming a disjunct - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

    Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy. The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: [1] A or B A Therefore, not B. Or in logical operators:

  5. Gun advocates don't make a logical argument | Opinion - AOL

    www.aol.com/gun-advocates-dont-logical-argument...

    Here is the technical definition of one logical fallacy. Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy based on drawing an untrue conclusion from an if–then argument. If X is true, then Y must ...

  6. Hypothetical syllogism - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_syllogism

    A mixed hypothetical syllogism has two premises: one conditional statement and one statement that either affirms or denies the antecedent or consequent of that conditional statement. For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent.

  7. Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

    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 ...

  8. List of fallacies - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false. [ 5 ] Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities , without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities .

  9. Fallacy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

    An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...