Talk:Affirming the consequent

	This Logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Making this article more approachable

I think this fallacy is much more common than this page makes it seem, and the technical jargon as used in the current form doesn't make it as useful or accessible a reference as I would like. I intend to make this article and its sibling, Denying the antecedent, more fun and useful so that people can be linked to them and hopefully be informed by them. I think putting a quote or two up top, like in some other fallacy pages, might be a good start, as well as perhaps some additional examples, hopefully as simple as practical. MisoprostolTea (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect symbol use?

In the section titled "Form": why is the double turnstile (\vDash,\models) of semantical entailment used? It seems that this might be due to the <math> toolbar not being functional, since whoever edited this section used the appropriate code \vdash. It should instead be the single turnstile of syntactical entailment. Leucippus 03:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's just there in error. Correct away! MarmotHead (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarmotHead Thanks for responding. Firstly, I shall see whether or not the math toolbar works at all. Another problem is the following sloppiness that pervades a lot of the logic articles: the first order variables 'x' and 'y' are used illegally in place of what should be propositional variables 'p' and 'q' which leads to ill-formed formulae. Leucippus 03:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just tried using the correct code and have got a 'syntax error.' I wonder whether the current pc I'm using is lacking the required instalments or whether the math toolbar is out of action. Leucippus 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)