Does the following argument involve a fallacy?
All babies are querulous. But David is not a baby, so he is not querulous.
(a) undistributed middle
(b) denying the antecedent
(c) affirming the consequent
(d) no fallacy; deductively valid
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Yes, the given argument involves a formal fallacy, denying the antecedent, which goes like this:
- p → q
- Therefore, ~q
The conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.
The given argument is clearly an instance of that:
- ∀x(Bx → Qx) [all babies are querulous]
- ~Bd [David is not a baby]
- Therefore, ~Qd [David is not querulus]