“If Anup is a member of Animal Rights Society, then he opposes horse racing. Anup opposes horse racing, therefore, he is a member of Animal Rights Society”. Which fallacy is committed in the above argument?

Correct option is C

The argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
This fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that if P → Q (if P, then Q) is true, and Q is observed to be true, then P must also be true. This reasoning is invalid because Q can be true for reasons other than P.
Given Argument:
· Premise 1: If Anup is a member of the Animal Rights Society (P), then he opposes horse racing (Q).
· Premise 2: Anup opposes horse racing (Q).
· Conclusion: Therefore, Anup is a member of the Animal Rights Society (P).
This reasoning is flawed because there might be other reasons why Anup opposes horse racing apart from being a member of the Animal Rights Society.
Information Booster
(a) Hasty generalisation:
This occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
It does not apply here as the argument's issue is logical structure, not lack of evidence.
(b) Inappropriate authority:
This occurs when an argument relies on an authority figure who is not credible on the subject matter.
This is not applicable in the given scenario.
(d) Denying the antecedent:
This occurs when an argument falsely concludes that if P → Q, and P is false, then Q must also be false.
This does not fit the structure of the argument here.