‘If Sneha tampered with the examination script, then she is guilty of a crime. Sneha did not tamper with the examination script. Therefore Sneha is not guilty of a crime.’
Which fallacy is committed in the above argument?

Correct option is C

The fallacy committed here is the Fallacy of denying the antecedent. In a conditional statement, the antecedent (the "if" part) and the consequent (the "then" part) do not imply a bidirectional relationship. Just because Sneha did not tamper with the examination script does not mean she is not guilty of a crime. The argument wrongly assumes that denying the antecedent ("Sneha did not tamper") means denying the consequent ("Sneha is not guilty"). This is a logical error because Sneha could still be guilty of other crimes.
Information Booster: 1. Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy in deductive reasoning. It occurs when an argument assumes that if a condition is not met, the consequence must also be false.
2. Affirming the consequent is the opposite fallacy, where one assumes that because the result is true, the initial condition must also be true. A fallacy where the consequent is affirmed, but that does not necessarily mean the antecedent is true.
3. Fallacy of composition: Assumes that what is true for individual parts must also be true for the whole.