Would this be "Fallacy of denying the antecedent or Fallacy of affirming the consequent?" The police profile said' the rapist is a white male, 25-35, and aggressive,' Jack is white, 30 years old, and aggressive, So, Jack is the rapist.

I think it is fallacy of affirming the consequent, but there is no if/then.

  • 2
    There's an implicit if/then. Police: if person is rapist, then they are white male, 25-35, aggressive. Statement: If someone is white, male, 25-35, he is the rapist. In this you are affirming the consequent.
    – user935
    Commented Oct 31, 2017 at 17:39

1 Answer 1


I think that the problem is an undistributed middle term.

  • The perpetrator is white, male, 25-35, and aggressive.
  • Jack is white, male, 25-35, and aggressive.
  • Jack is the perpetrator.

This syllogism is AAA in the second figure. The middle term is "white, male, [&c]", and is undistributed in both premises. There is thus no link between the two statements.

By the way, this reasoning is the error that underlies guilt by association.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .