Denying the antecedent assumes that if P implies Q, then non-P implies non-Q.
Evidence
This argument commits the classical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent of a conditional statement.” This fallacy is committed when a statement in the conditional form “if P then Q” is taken to imply “if not P, then not Q.” — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940
Categorization
- DEFINE: DEFINE
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940
- XREF: connects to: Inferring the contrapositive from a universal negative proposition is invalid — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 907; 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; Affirming the consequent fails because multiple independent conditions can produce it — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Disjunctive fallacies occur through missing disjuncts or nonexclusivity of options.
#expands(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 783