Post a New Question

critical thinking

posted by .

Show, using your own examples, how affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are deductively invalid argument forms. What makes these examples of forms of fallacious reasoning?
I answered half of the question already but i'm stuck on these two key points related to the question .can you please help me..

1.Explain invalidity with reference to deduction.
2. Explain how the argument forms are fallacious

Respond to this Question

First Name
School Subject
Your Answer

Similar Questions

  1. critical thinking

    I was just wondering if you could give me some tips to help eliminate invalid and unsound claims in writing. Honestly, sometimes we are so blinded by our own thinking, it is difficult. In my experience, peer review is probably the …
  2. Critical Thinking

    I need help with this one,I'm not sure what to do. Suzy will pass critical thinking only if she begins to study. Compound: No Conditional: No Antecedent: Consequent: Contradictory: Contrapositive:
  3. CRT205

    Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result …
  4. crithical thinking

    Critical Analysis Forms Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Title and Citation: 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you …
  5. college math

    Indicate whether the deductive reasoning used is an example of affirming the hypothesis or denying the conclusion. 7) If a number is divisible by 3, then the sum of the digits of that number is divisible by 3. A number is divisible …
  6. critical thinking

    Show, using your own examples, how affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are deductively invalid argument forms. What makes these examples of forms of fallacious reasoning?
  7. english

    hypothetical syllogisms can have two valid and two invalid structures. The two valid structures are affirming the antecedent or modus ponens and denying the consequent or modus tollens. The two invalid structures or fallacies are denying …
  8. English-Ms. Sue please

    hypothetical syllogisms can have two valid and two invalid structures. The two valid structures are affirming the antecedent or modus ponens and denying the consequent or modus tollens. The two invalid structures or fallacies are denying …
  9. english

    what are the two formal fallacies? My answer- fallacy of denying the antecedent and fallacy of affirming the consequent. I don't know if this is correct.
  10. Critical Thinking

    Consider the following conductive argument: P1. Critical thinking teaches the fundamentals of good reasoning. P2. Critical thinking helps people learn how to detect bad reasoning in the arguments they hear and read. P3. Critical thinking …

More Similar Questions

Post a New Question