Denying the antecedent is an invalid logical inference in formal reasoning

Evidence

The proposition that “A implies B” is not the equivalent of “non-A implies non-B,” and neither proposition follows logically from the other. The process of inferring one from the other is known as “the fallacy of denying the antecedent.” — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 938

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 938
• 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; 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 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)

Broader Connections

• Denying the antecedent assumes that if P implies Q, then non-P implies non-Q. #expands (0.90) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 940