1

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.

Thanks!

Mark

1 Answer 1

3

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.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

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