Affirming the consequent is a type of logical fallacy.
Suppose in an argument one were to affirm the "then" part of a conditional (the consequent) first, and conclude with the "if" part (the antecedent).
- If P, then Q.
- Therefore, P.
- There is oxygen here. Therefore, there is fire here.
- "That is like saying that 'Where there is clay there is pottery,' when clearly pottery is not dug out of the ground, but clay is, then pottery is formed from the clay. Likewise fire is not all around us, but oxygen is, then fire is achieved by putting a sufficient heat source to any gas, such as oxygen, to ignite it."
- "If there were fire everywhere there is oxygen, then we would be burning right now, for oxygen is all around us."
- Where there is oxygen there is fire.
- Oxygen is all around us.
- Therefore, fire would be all around us
- We would burn.