Trust Me Bro: the receipt

trustme.bro/r/…

✓ checked

trust me, bro:

here is the receipt.

the claim

Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy distinct from post hoc ergo propter hoc

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

refutedsupported

the weight of evidence

2 sources for · 0 against

AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy involving invalid conditional reasoning, whereas post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy involving faulty causal reasoning based on temporal order.

Evidence for · 2

Wikipedia: Affirming the consequent

cited by 0

Reference article covering this claim directly

citation format

See more details

How claims like this are judged

Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by reference works, not journal abstracts.

More for · 1

Wikipedia: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

cited by 0

Reference article covering this claim directly

The paper trail · every fact has a biography

first checked04 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 7504 Aug 2026

More receipts

Is it true that Phonological evolution involves regular processes of phoneme elision, vowel nasalization, and tonogenesis?Is it true that Hemangiomas are treatable with medication?Is it true that Research identifies forms of intelligence that diverge from standard IQ measures?

Random receipt →The Trust Wiki →

This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: the research is thin, dig deeper

trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt