denying the consequent
To argue validly that, given that if p then q and given not-q, we can infer not-p. ‘If the leg is broken this will hurt; it does not hurt, so the leg is not broken.’
To argue validly that, given that if p then q and given not-q, we can infer not-p. ‘If the leg is broken this will hurt; it does not hurt, so the leg is not broken.’
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "denying the consequent" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
![]() | Philosophy Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Copyright © 1994, 1996, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |