Denying the Antecedent is a type of flawed “if-then” argument which claims that a “then” statement is false because an “if” statement is also false. Like “If you have a dog, you are a pet owner. You do not have a dog. Therefore, you are not a pet owner.” Using real examples from the origins controversy, let’s see when Denying the Antecedent is (and isn’t) a fallacy.
Correction to video: At the 1:48 mark, Patricia said, "Both argument structures are invalid if there are other ways the conclusion could be true, besides the given premises," but meant, "...if there's any way the conclusion could be false, even if the non-conditional premise is true."