CRITICAL THINKING D265 FALLACIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS 100% CORRECT RATED A+||UPDATED 2025/2026

CRITICAL THINKING D265 FALLACIES
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH
COMPLETE SOLUTIONS 100%
CORRECT RATED A+||UPDATED
2025/2026
Affirming the Consequent
Definition:
This is a logical fallacy where the argument mistakenly assumes that because the
consequent (the second part) of a conditional statement is true, the antecedent (the
first part) must also be true.
Structure:
1. If X, then Y.
2. Y.
3. Therefore, X.
Why it's a fallacy:
The reasoning assumes that the truth of Y (the consequent) guarantees the truth of
X (the antecedent), but in reality, there could be other factors that cause Y to be
true.
Example:
 If it rains, the ground will be wet.
 The ground is wet.
 Therefore, it must have rained.
This is a fallacy because the ground could be wet for other reasons (e.g., someone
watering the garden), not just because it rained.


Denying the Antecedent