Non User
Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z	Business Non User Industries Finance Tax

Home > Affirming a disjunct

Either A or B (this is the disjunct)

A (Affirming the middle term)

Therefore, not B

The fallacy lies in concluding that B must be false because A is true; in fact they may both be true. The second, or " minor premise" must be negative in order for this kind of argument to be valid.

NOTE: if the or is really a xor then this is not a fallacy.

Example:

See also: syllogistic fallacy.

External links

• Fallacy files: affirming a disjunct

Politics	Business	Finance

Topics: Affirming A Disjunct Fallacy Logical True Argument Negative...

---

Affirming the consequentAffirming the consequent is a logical fallacy in the form of a hypothetical proposition. The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when a hypothetical proposition comprised of an antecedent and a consequent asserts that the truthhood of the anteceden Affirming the antecedentAffirming the antecedent is a valid argument form which proceeds by affirming the truth of the first part (the "if" part, commonly called the antecedent) of a conditional, and concluding that the second part (the "then" part, commonly called the consequen Affirming a disjunctThe logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct occurs in a disjunctive syllogism when an argument takes the form: :Either A or B (this is the disjunct :A Affirming the middle term) :Therefore, not B The fallacy lies in concluding that B must be false because Affirming catholicismAffirming Catholicism is a movement operating in several provinces of the Anglican Communion. It represents the liberal strand of Anglo-Catholicism. It is particularly noted for its liberal stance on the ordination of women and full inclusion of homosexua