# Why is denying the antecedent invalid?

**denying the antecedent**is an

**invalid**argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Keeping this in view, is denying the consequent valid or invalid?

“**Affirming the Consequent**” is the name of an **invalid** conditional argument form. You can think of it as the **invalid** version of modus ponens. No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be **valid**, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE **CONSEQUENT** will be **INVALID**.

Similarly, what is antecedent argument? Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the **antecedent** (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true. Logical Form: If P, then Q.

Similarly, is denying the disjunct valid?

For a brief introduction to propositional logic, see the entry for Propositional Fallacy. However, **affirming** a **disjunct** in order to **deny** the other is non-validating: if both **disjuncts** are true, then the premisses of the argument will be true and the conclusion false?but see "Types of **Disjunction**", below.

What is the difference between affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent?

John will want to marry Mary is the **consequent**. **Denying the antecedent** means **denying** John loves Mary. In other words John does not love Mary. **Affirming the consequent** means asserting John will want to marry Mary.