Primary Source: Levi, Edward | An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2013 ed, not 1949), p. 3 Footnote 5.
2ndary Source: Weinreb. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (1 ed 2005, but ∃ 2 ed 2016), p. 9 Footnote.
5The logical fallacy is the fallacy of the undistributed middle[,] or the fallacy of assuming the antecedent is true because the consequent has been affirmed.
[ Wikipedia : ] The fallacy is similar to affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
See my own tabulation below: I understand that 4 logically equals 5.
But is Wikipedia right: how does 2 logically equal 3? 2 lacks, but 3 contains, negation.