## What is an example of denying the consequent?

For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars did not force the lock that they did not enter by the front door.

## What is the logical form of denying the consequent?

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true. Logical Form: If P, then Q.

**What is an example of denying the antecedent?**

If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has no gun, then he will not kill anyone. If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not work hard you will not get a good job.

**Why do people affirm the consequent?**

Affirming the consequent is a fallacious form of reasoning in formal logic that occurs when the minor premise of a propositional syllogism affirms the consequent of a conditional statement. It simply claims that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent is also true.

### Is denying the consequent valid?

The opposite statement, denying the consequent, is a valid form of argument.

### Can you deny the consequent?

The Principle that Denying the Consequent entails Denying the Antecedent (your example, and 4. above) has the Latin name ‘Modus Tollens’ meaning ‘Way that Denies’. The Principle that Affirming the Antecedent entails Affirming the Consequent (1. above) has the Latin name ‘Modus Ponens’ meaning ‘Way that Affirms’.

**What makes denying the antecedent invalid?**

Like modus ponens, modus tollens is a valid argument form because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, like affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

**Why is affirming the consequent wrong?**

Affirming the consequent is an invalid argument because its premises do not guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion. As seen above, there is a flaw in the argument’s structure because it uses erroneous conditional logic, and it is this flaw that renders the conclusion invalid.

## Is denying the consequent valid or invalid?

## Is the consequent or conclusion?

Conclusion: that statement which is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions (the premises) of the argument. Conditional statement: an “if p, then q” compound statement (ex. If I throw this ball into the air, it will come down); p is called the antecedent, and q is the consequent.

**Is modus tollens a tautology?**

Recall that a tautology is a proposition that is always true. Addition If the hypothesis is true, then the disjunction is true. Modus tollens If a hypothesis is not true and an implication is true, then the other proposition cannot be true.

**Can denying the antecedent be valid?**

It is possible that an argument that denies the antecedent could be valid if the argument instantiates some other valid form. For example, if the claims P and Q express the same proposition, then the argument would be trivially valid, as it would beg the question.

### How is denying the consequent in Symbolic Logic?

We are DENYING the consequent. We are dealing here with a Conditional (If X then Y: expressed in symbolic logic as X–>Y). X is the ANTECEDENT, Y is the CONSEQUENT. Conditionals yield 4 arguments in classical logic, two valid and 2 invalid (fallacies): 1. AFFIRMING the ANTECEDENT. 2. AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT.

### What does it mean to deny the consequent?

Also called modus tollens. See affirmimg the antecedent – affirming the consequent. DENYING THE CONSEQUENT: “Denying the consequent is where the negative aspect is also true.”

**Can you deny the consequent of a conditional statement?**

To deny the consequent of a conditional statement and conclude with the denial of its antecedent is a validating form of argument known as “Modus Tollens”―see the second Similar Validating Form in the table, above. These forms are similar enough that someone might mistakenly confuse one with the other.

**Which is the consequent If I have logic class?**

So, in the Form given above, the consequent is “q”. For example, in the statement “if today is Tuesday, then I have logic class”, “I have logic class” is the consequent.