Affirming the Consequent
Grace Wang
PHI108: Slides Project
What is Affirming the Consequent?
Non sequitur or affirming the consequent: Even if the premise and conclusion are all true,
the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. (Critical Reasoning and
Writing, pg 113)
According to ClearAndPresentThinking, affirming the consequent is a type of sneaky invalid
argument that looks a lot like modus ponen and is hard to spot. It makes sense, because if
the premises are true for that specific situation, then the overall conclusion also appears to
be true. But in reality, the limited premise is not actually representative of the conclusion at
all.
Topic
I would like to look into depth about Affirming the Consequent in psychology. I think it is
interesting how we use logic against other people. The structure of the argument
makes sense, but logically it may not be true, so it is interesting how we subconsciously
are able to strategize and use something that sounds structurally right to manipulate
the other person
Examples
Since the invalidity of Affirming The Consequent is hard to spot, it is sometimes used as a
technique for manipulating or ‘gaslighting’ others (see Chapter 8.14). Consider, as an
example, an argument like this:
(P1) If you are crazy, you are going to see things that aren’t there.
(P2) You are seeing things that aren’t there.
(C) You’re therefore crazy.
Clear And Present Thinking, Chapter 5, Pg 101
The premises does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is true because the first
premise is too general, and because the second premise is connected to the the first
premise, it appears that the first part of the first premise is also true but that is not
necessarily so.
Real Life Example 1:
If you’re lazy, you’re going to say you’re tired even though you got plenty sleep
You got plenty of sleep
You’re therefore lazy
My parents would say this to me and although it is a structurally correct argument, it isn’t
necessarily true, and a part of me did believe them when I shouldn’t have. This is because
although the conclusion seems dependent on the premises, it is not reflective of all
situations. Therefore, the conclusion overgeneralizes because of the lack of enough
premises to support the argument. I think the real problem at hand is actually the first
premise that ends up messing up the conclusion, because the premise could be not true
Real Life Example 2:
If you’re dumb, you will fail your midterm
You fail your midterm
You’re dumb
A lot of young people fall into this belief and “standard” even though it is not true and too
general. The first premise is also just inaccurate, it also does not explain what dumb is.
There is no credibility that failing your midterm actually means you’re dumb. Thus, the truth
of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premise
Real Life Example 3:
You’re selfish if you don’t spend time with your family
You don’t spend time with your family
You’re selfish
This person could be going through something and have reasons as to why they don’t spend
time with their family. The conclusion oversimplifies the issue, but someone might actually
believe this
Why does this matter?
Chapter 1:
“However, if you learn to think logically, and if you grow into the habit of thinking logically, you
will find that the difficulty of philosophical questions becomes no longer frightening. Indeed
you may find that kind of difficulty an interesting invitation.” (pg 10)
if we grow in the habit of thinking logically, we will not only find the difficulty of philosophical
questions less frightening, but we will also be less likely to be manipulated by others. This is
important if one does not want to fall into the trap of believing affirming the consequent.
Consequences of Affirming the Consequent
Chapter 3:
“3.10. The Consequences of Bad Habits: Make you more vulnerable to being intimidated,
bullied, or manipulated by others. Make it harder to tell the difference between truth and lies;”
(70)
The consequences of bad habits of thinking will make you more susceptible to the invalidity
of affirming the consequent, therefore, we should be more aware and actively seek out when
there is potential for a situation or argument being the ideas related to affirming the
consequent.
How to overcome Affirming the Consequent
Chapter 3:
“Healthy skepticism is the general unwillingness to accept that things are what they appear
to be. It is the unwillingness to take things for granted, or to accept that things are as you
have been told they are by anyone else, no matter who they are” (73)
If we use good habits of thinking, it can help us overcome the manipulating aspects of
affirming the consequent. Good habits involve healthy skepticism so we don’t take things as
is, and this can help strengthen our own logic and sense of self assurity.
Comments
Chapter 3:
“This is a more difficult prospect than it may appear. Some people do not find out what their
own worldview is until someone else says or does something that challenges it. But it is an
essential quality: Those who do not know themselves tend to make poor decisions, and they
are easily manipulated by others.” (71)
I would argue that those who are also not aware of logic tend to also be manipulated by
others, and I think I could easily change the word “themselves” with “Affirming the
consequent” because the message of the quote above can be used in the same context of
my topic
Questions
1. When have you experienced Affirming the Consequent in the real world?
2. Would affirming the consequent not be manipulative if you’re not directing it at an actual
person?
3. Are you more logical or emotional?

Published by

Essays

View all posts