This question has been touched on in other questions but not answered in a way that fully answers my own question. Like here:

Argument "a is b" but "b is not a" valid?

What is the name of the fallacy characterized by "All A are B; therefore all B are A"?

To put my idea in everyday terms it is "Fleas are a type of parasite, but parasites are not a type of flea". That is, there is a super-set (parasites) and a sub-set (fleas); a hierarchy. Does the statement have a name of any sort? (I'm not looking for a fallacy.)

Thanks in advance.

  • I can only think of taxonomy at the moment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy – Bread Feb 25 at 2:02
  • Are you asking for the name of confusing "if A then B" for "if B then A"? That is called affirming the consequent, a.k.a. fallacy of the converse. – Conifold Feb 25 at 5:00
  • @Bread - It is part of what makes taxonomies useful. – ALT Feb 25 at 23:06
  • @Conifold - Not the name of a fallacy, just the name of the idea: “A is a type of B, but B is not a type of A”. – ALT Feb 25 at 23:07
  • It is related to the idea of proper subset: if all A-s are B-s, but not all B-s are A-s, then A is a proper subset (subtype, subclass) of B. The set of those B-s that are not A-s is called the set difference of B and A, denoted B \ A, a.k.a. relative complement. – Conifold Feb 28 at 4:52

It does not have a name, but a symbol in logic. The symbol is ⇒. For example, you could say:

A⇒B is true but B⇒A is false.

This is called material implication.

  • 1
    Also, you could think of rectangles and squares. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. – Math Bob Feb 25 at 4:14
  • @ALT A⇒B is the material implication, "but B⇒A is false" is not a part of it. In fact, it may well also be that B⇒A is true. Every bachelor is an unmarried man, and every unmarried man is a bachelor. – Conifold Feb 25 at 23:15
  • @Conifold, in this particular instance B⇒A cannot be true. – ALT Feb 27 at 2:31
  • @ALT Then your idea is not named "material implication". – Conifold Feb 27 at 8:09
  • @Conifold, hmmm, then what is it called?? – ALT Feb 27 at 23:39



Is an invalid deduction since we can have two sets A&B such that A⊆B, but B⊄A.

For instance, if we let A= {1} and B={1,2}, we fulfill the condition above.

Let A={set of all cars}, and B={set of all things with 4 wheels}, then A⊆B, but B⊄A.

That is, every car has 4 wheel, but not every 4-wheeler is a car!

That said, there is no particular name for this formal fallacy in Predicate-Logic, but it has a corresponding fallacy in Propositional-logic:



This called affirming the consequent.

I hope that answers your question!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.