Affirming the consequent & Logical reasoning - Unionpedia, the concept map

Shortcuts: Differences, Similarities, Jaccard Similarity Coefficient, References.

Difference between Affirming the consequent and Logical reasoning

Affirming the consequent vs. Logical reasoning

In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "if the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark") under certain assumptions (there are no other lights in the room, it is nighttime and the windows are closed), and invalidly inferring its converse ("the room is dark, so the lamp must be broken"), even though that statement may not be true under the same assumptions. Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way.

Abductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,For example: abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations.

Abductive reasoning and Affirming the consequent · Abductive reasoning and Logical reasoning · See more »

Denying the antecedent

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from an original statement.

Affirming the consequent and Denying the antecedent · Denying the antecedent and Logical reasoning · See more »

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a formal fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed in either the minor premise or the major premise.

Affirming the consequent and Fallacy of the undistributed middle · Fallacy of the undistributed middle and Logical reasoning · See more »

Formal fallacy

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (it does not follow) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.

Affirming the consequent and Formal fallacy · Formal fallacy and Logical reasoning · See more »

Modus ponens

In propositional logic, modus ponens (MP), also known as modus ponendo ponens, implication elimination, or affirming the antecedent, is a deductive argument form and rule of inference.

Affirming the consequent and Modus ponens · Logical reasoning and Modus ponens · See more »

Modus tollens

In propositional logic, modus tollens (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference.

Affirming the consequent and Modus tollens · Logical reasoning and Modus tollens · See more »