4

0

I am presented with an argument of form:

If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if r, then p.

Does this structure have a specific title? I know that it is invalid, and am assuming that "reverse hypothetical syllogism" is nowhere near correct.

I've looked online to no avail, so any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

1Edit: This almost seems like a two-stage version of affirming the consequent. Is that a possibility? – Ben – 2017-09-23T00:40:56.973

1Syllogisms have premises in the form "all M is P", "some M is P" or "no M is P", so what you have are not syllogisms. If we convert "if p then q" into "all p is q" then your inference is a combination of Barbara with affirming the consequent. It does not have a special name, there are too many possible combinations to name them all. What exactly do you need the name for? – Conifold – 2017-09-23T01:26:28.710

1

It is not a syllogism. It is a fallacious argument, very similar to Affirming the consequent.

– Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2017-09-23T08:24:54.100If this were a longer chain, it might be a form of circular argument. – None – 2017-09-23T16:10:48.333

Can one explain how this form is not a hypothical syllogism as in the inference rule? The form is not a standard categorical syllogism. – Logikal – 2017-10-27T01:54:22.443