Denying the antecedent fails because alternative conditions can produce the consequent

Evidence

It is entirely consistent with the major premise to suppose that there are other invalidating circumstances (other possible antecedents) which will give the same consequent, e.g., undue influence over the testator in drafting his will. Thus the denial of this particular circumstance (the insanity of the testator) does not warrant a denial of the consequent (that the will is invalid). — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 934

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 934
• XREF: connects to: 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; 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 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Affirming the consequent fails because multiple independent conditions can produce it #expands (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 936
• Denying the antecedent assumes that if P implies Q, then non-P implies non-Q. #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940
• Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities #expands (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 976
• Denying the antecedent is an invalid logical inference in formal reasoning #corroborates (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 938