Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Arguments of this form are invalid, in that arguments of this form do not always give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the “then” clause of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If Bill Gate...