 Right on this time, and we have a philosophical issue to deal with, actually specifically it's a logical reasoning issue. So we're going to talk about affirmation of the consequent, or affirming the consequent, or the logic of affirming a consequent, or the fallacy of the logic of affirming the consequent. All of them are related to the concept of affirming the consequent, which you might have guessed. So here we go. Affirming the consequent is simple. It's where it's a three-step form of reasoning that begins with a true antecedent consequent relationship. The statement that follows is such. If A is true, then B. Affirming the consequent happens when you observe B and assume A. It is also a logical failure. However, experiments can be designed to ensure the presence of A when you observe B, and in fact that is what experimentation is often about. So affirming the consequent inherently has a logical flaw, but can be teased apart by experimentation using ABA designs or full reversal designs or other designs in the field.