I have no idea why (2) is an invalid argument.
(1)
If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A
(2)
If A, then B
Not A
Therefore not B
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 communityI have no idea why (2) is an invalid argument.
(1)
If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A
(2)
If A, then B
Not A
Therefore not B
Let's try with some examples.
if (2) were valid, then it would follow that Alex is not wearing shoes. But clearly we haven't shown that Alex is not wearing shoes, because there are other conditions under which he wears shoes.
(1), however, can remain valid, if
In this case, we can infer both that Alex is not walking in the forest and that Alex is not walking on the street.
Now let's make it a bit more formal. Valid in logic means that if the premises happened to be true, then the conclusion must also be true.
By the counter example above, we have shown that the pattern you refer to as (2) can have a false conclusion with true premises. This pattern is the fallacy called "denying the antecedent."