What is the meaning of denying the antecedent?

What is the meaning of denying the antecedent?

: the logical fallacy of inferring the negation of the consequent of an implication from the negation of the antecedent (as in “if it rains then the game is canceled but it has not rained therefore the game is not canceled”) — compare affirmation of the consequent.

What is denying the antecedent example?

If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has no gun, then he will not kill anyone. If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not work hard you will not get a good job.

What is the Latin of fallacy?

The word “fallacy” may derive from the Latin word fallere, meaning “to deceive, to trip, to lead into error, to trick.” The word may also derive from the Greek phelos, meaning “deceitful.”

What makes denying the antecedent invalid?

Like modus ponens, modus tollens is a valid argument form because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, like affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Why is denying the antecedent a fallacy?

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true. Logical Form: If P, then Q.

What is an example of denying the consequent?

For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars did not force the lock that they did not enter by the front door.

What is the Latin for a valid argument?

Any argument with the form just stated is valid. This form of argument is called by the Latin phrase, “modus ponens”. We’ll call it “affirming the antecedent”. Basically, the argument states that, given a first thing, a second thing is true.

What is converse accident fallacy?

a type of informal fallacy or a persuasive technique that involves arguing from a qualified position or particular case to an unqualified and general rule. For example, because patients with certain illnesses are permitted to use marijuana, marijuana use should be legal for everyone.

Can denying the antecedent be valid?

For an argument to be valid, though, it has to be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus, denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form.

Where does the term denying the antecedent come from?

Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise “not P”, which denies the “if” clause of the conditional premise.

What does the Latin term denying the consequent mean?

The Principle that Denying the Consequent entails Denying the Antecedent (your example, and 4. above) has the Latin name ‘Modus Tollens’ meaning ‘Way that Denies’. The Principle that Affirming the Antecedent entails Affirming the Consequent (1. above) has the Latin name ‘Modus Ponens’ meaning ‘Way…

What did the Stoics mean by affirming the antecedent?

The Principle that Affirming the Antecedent entails Affirming the Consequent (1. above) has the Latin name ‘Modus Ponens’ meaning ‘Way that Affirms’. These Principles were, I think, first explicitly stated by the Stoics.

How many arguments are there for denying the consequent?

Conditionals yield 4 arguments in classical logic, two valid and 2 invalid (fallacies): 1. AFFIRMING the ANTECEDENT. 2. AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT. X–>Y. 3. DENYING the ANTECEDENT 4. DENYING the CONSEQUENT Running through each using your example.