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

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

Recorded sources

2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

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

Is it true that affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy distinct from post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Yes. 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.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 4 Aug 2026

How claims like this are judged

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

Evidence for · 2

Wikipedia: Affirming the consequent

Reference article covering this claim directly

Get citation

Wikipedia: Affirming the consequent. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

See more details

More for · 1

Wikipedia: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Reference article covering this claim directly

Get citation

Wikipedia: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Related receipts

Is it true that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy confuses temporal sequence with causal connection? SUPPORTED related question, same topic
Is it true that circular reasoning is always a formal logical fallacy? REFUTED related question, same topic

Receipt History

first checked04 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 7504 Aug 2026

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

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