A
logical fallacy in which, as
artfuldodger clearly states, the
implication logical operator is
abused. The
problem is that implication only states that if
A is
true, then
B must be true. If A is
false, we know
nothing about the value of B (
as opposed to B being false, so we know A is false; see
Denying the consequent/
Modus Tollens).
To prove that the antecedent is being denied, show that the relation is an implication and that the premise corresponds to NOT A. You may do this by showing that something else besides A may cause B.