| 1. | :Yes, affirming the consequent looks like a good descriptor.
|
| 2. | The fallacy is similar to affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
|
| 3. | Sounds like a fairly straightforward case of affirming the consequent to me.
|
| 4. | :: I think it's an example of affirming the consequent.
|
| 5. | Going from a statement to its converse is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
|
| 6. | This sort of " non sequitur " is also called affirming the consequent.
|
| 7. | :: That answer is open to a charge of affirming the consequent, though.
|
| 8. | There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument : affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
|
| 9. | Both have apparently similar but invalid forms such as affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and evidence of absence.
|
| 10. | :Ok the point here is that fallacy of division is the more appropriate fallacy, rather than affirming the consequent.
|
