Welcome guest
You're not logged in.
243 users online, thereof 0 logged in

Lemma: Affirming the Consequent of an Implication

Similar to mixing-up the necessary and sufficient condition of an implication is a fallacy known as the affirming the consequent. It is often used to manipulate the opinion of the audience about a proposed action. Given two propositions $p$ and $q$, it takes the following form:

p\Rightarrow q&\text{major premise}&\text{e.g. If we want to succeed, then we have to take the risk.}\\
q&\text{minor premise}&\text{e.g. I tell you, we have to take the risk.}\\
p&\text{conclusion}&\text{e.g. Therefore, we will succeed.}\\

Another, more mathematical example of this fallacy is

p\Rightarrow q&\text{major premise}&\text{e.g. If a number $n\neq 2$ is a prime number, then it is odd.}\\
q&\text{minor premise}&\text{e.g. The number $n$ is odd.}\\
p&\text{conclusion}&\text{e.g. Therefore, $n\neq 2$ and $n$ is a prime number.}\\

| | | | | created: 2018-03-11 16:16:45 | modified: 2018-03-19 00:27:32 | by: bookofproofs | references: [6823]

1.Proof: (related to "Affirming the Consequent of an Implication")

This work was contributed under CC BY-SA 3.0 by:

This work is a derivative of:


Bibliography (further reading)

[6823] Kane, Jonathan: “Writing Proofs in Analysis”, Springer, 2016

FeedsAcknowledgmentsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyImprint
© 2018 Powered by BooOfProofs, All rights reserved.