Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,026
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: +
affirming the consequent
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.