Campaign!G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include: Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!) Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!) Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards) Just asking questions to the candidates Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype! from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016 NextPrevious

# Affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy often used in the context of trying to establish guilt by association. It is named after the consequent in a conditional statement (Q in "if P, then Q").

## Forms of the argument

### Propositional logic

• If P, then Q.
• Q.
• Therefore, P.

In formal terms, the fallacious argument is stated as $\left(P\rightarrow Q\right), Q \vDash P$.

### First-order logic

• If P is true of x, then Q is true of x.
• Q is true of x.
• Therefore, P is true of x.

In formal terms, the fallacious argument is stated as $\forall x.\left(P(x)\rightarrow Q(x)\right), Q(a)\vDash P(a)$.

## Examples of the argument

### Propositional form

• If it is sunny today, then I will go swimming.
• I will go swimming.
• Therefore, it is sunny today.

### First-order form

• Fascists support a strong military.
• John Q. Warhawk supports a strong military.
• Therefore, John Q. Warhawk is a fascist.