From the internet I saw an example of an Affirming the Consequent fallacy :
If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining
I'm trying to make two examples.
Example-1.
1. If the animals are herbivore then they will eat plants
2. My dog eat grass
3. Therefore my dog is herbivore
I wonder, should I put "therefore dogs are herbivore" in number-3 in order it's a valid Affirming the consequent fallacy ?
Example-2.
If human beings are sinners then they will do sin
My toddler lied
Therefore my toddler is a sinner
The question :
Are the two examples above Affirming the consequent fallacy ?
I wonder, in example-1, should I put "therefore dogs are herbivore" in number-3 in order it's a valid Affirming the consequent fallacy ?
I wonder, in example-2, should I put "therefore toddlers are sinners" in number-3 in order it's a valid Affirming the consequent fallacy ?
Thank you.