Affirming the consequent fails because multiple independent conditions can produce it

Evidence

Here again the conclusion goes beyond the major premise by presupposing that the only condition under which a will can be invalid is that the testator was insane. Other conditions can invalidate a will, e.g., no signature, no witnesses. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936
• XREF: connects to: Denying the antecedent fails because alternative conditions can produce the consequent — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 934; Denying the antecedent is an invalid logical inference in formal reasoning — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 938; Denying the antecedent assumes that if P implies Q, then non-P implies non-Q. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940 (+2 more)

Library Connections

• Denying the antecedent assumes that if P implies Q, then non-P implies non-Q. #complicates (0.55) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940

Broader Connections

• Denying the antecedent is an invalid logical inference in formal reasoning #corroborates (0.35) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 938