 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:

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

Another, more mathematical example of this fallacy is

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

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

(none)

### Bibliography (further reading)

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