Difference between revisions of "Sufficient condition"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(affirming the consequent) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
However, "There was lightning nearby" is ''not'' a sufficient cause of "I heard thunder," because there may have been lightning nearby that I did not hear. | However, "There was lightning nearby" is ''not'' a sufficient cause of "I heard thunder," because there may have been lightning nearby that I did not hear. | ||
| + | Confusing a sufficient condition with a [[necessary and sufficient condition]] is a [[logical fallacy]] known as [[affirming the consequent]]. | ||
From the affirmation of a sufficient condition, one may infer that the [[necessary condition]] is true. | From the affirmation of a sufficient condition, one may infer that the [[necessary condition]] is true. | ||
Revision as of 13:19, June 18, 2016
A sufficient condition is one for which the following is true:
- If A is a sufficient condition of B, then if A is true, B must be true.
For example, "I heard thunder" is a sufficient condition of "There was lightning nearby," because if I heard thunder, there must have been lightning nearby to cause it. However, "There was lightning nearby" is not a sufficient cause of "I heard thunder," because there may have been lightning nearby that I did not hear.
Confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary and sufficient condition is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
From the affirmation of a sufficient condition, one may infer that the necessary condition is true.