According to Kellogg (2011), denial of consequence comprises of an antecedent and a consequent in form of an argument. It follows the format of “If p, then q” where p is the antecedent and q the consequence. Before proceeding, it is important to analyze the statement, “If I study hard, then I will do well on my final assignment.” The antecedent in this sentence is “If I study hard” while the consequent is “I will do well on my final assignment”. To deny the consequent, I have not yet done well on my final assignment, therefore, I cannot have studied hard. In this case, q (consequent) is not the case hence, p (antecedent) cannot be the case. Therefore, the argument is valid.
If the statement was to be tested to see what happens if one does not study hard, it would cease to be a logic statement. Definitely, the test would break the rule of “If p, then q” to “If not p, then q”. Evidently, it will become a question of choices rather than a test. In that case, it will imply that I have other ways of doing well on my final assignment apart from studying hard. Therefore, I do not have to study hard to do well.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the effects of denying the consequence in problem solving and decision making is that it emphasizes on procedure. That means that people have to observe a certain way of doing things. On a positive note, adhering to a certain way of doing things reduces risks or mistakes. On a negative note, this type of reasoning could impede creativity (Floridi, 2009). That means that people could be hindered from testing new ideas to perform certain tasks even if they figure out the best ways of solving problems.
References
Floridi, L. (2009). Logical fallacies as informational shortcuts. Synthese , 167 (2), 317-325.
Kellogg, R. T. (2011). Fundamentals of cognitive psychology . Sage.
