Why is denying the antecedent invalid?
Keeping this in view, is denying the consequent valid or invalid?
“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens. No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will be INVALID.
Similarly, what is antecedent argument? Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true. Logical Form: If P, then Q.
Similarly, is denying the disjunct valid?
For a brief introduction to propositional logic, see the entry for Propositional Fallacy. However, affirming a disjunct in order to deny the other is non-validating: if both disjuncts are true, then the premisses of the argument will be true and the conclusion false?but see "Types of Disjunction", below.
What is the difference between affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent?
John will want to marry Mary is the consequent. Denying the antecedent means denying John loves Mary. In other words John does not love Mary. Affirming the consequent means asserting John will want to marry Mary.