If a Company doctor is competent, then he or she has completed the Company's "Fitness-for-Duty Examiner" certification training. [If P then Q]

Company doctors are all Certified Fitness-for-Duty Examiners. [Q]

Therefore, Company doctors are competent. [Therefore, P]

Note_1: I wanted to write the second (Q) statement in a more realistic fashion. However, it might help for me to give more precise verbiage to make it clear: "All Company doctors have completed the Company's 'Fitness-for-Duty Examiner' certification training." [Q]

Note_2: I read several previous questions concerning Affirming the Consequent. I have read the Wikipedia article, and other articles online about this logical fallacy.



1 Answer 1


Yes, this is a classical case of affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent occurs whenever the antecedent of a conditional statement is inferred from its consequent, that is p->q, q therefore p, which is invalid.

The consequent specifies a necessary condition for the antecedent. In your example, having a certification is necessary for competence. But that doesn't mean it's sufficient. It could be one of several necessary conditions.


You must log in to answer this question.

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