Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!

one moment please...

Questions? Friendly Debate? Deep Conversations? Be a Call-in Guest on the Dr. Bo Show!

Illicit Contraposition

New Terminology:

Illicit: Forbidden by the rules, or in our cases, by the laws of logic.

Contraposition: Switching the subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition, and negating each.

Description: A formal fallacy where switching the subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition, then negating each, results in an invalid argument form.  The examples below make this more clear.  This is a fallacy only for type “E” and type “I” forms, or forms using the words “no” and “some”, respectively.

Logical Forms:

No S are P.

Therefore, no non-P are non-S.


Some S are P.

Therefore, some non-P are non-S.

Example #1:

No Catholics are Jews.

Therefore, no non-Jews are non-Catholics. (contraposition)

Explanation: By definition, no Catholics are Jews (using type “E” form here) -- clear enough.  Now let’s take the contraposition of that proposition by switching the placement of “Catholics” and “Jews”, and negating each, and we can see we have a false proposition.  “No non-Jews are non-Catholics” clearly does not mean the same thing as “No Catholics are Jews”.  In this example, the premise is true but the conclusion is false (I am a non-Jew and a non-Catholic, and statistically speaking, you probably are too.)

Example #2:

Some dogs bark.

Therefore, some non-barking things are non-dogs. (contraposition)

Explanation: We now see the type “I” form in action, stating, “Some” dogs bark.  This is true, but that really does not matter in determining what form of an argument is valid or not.  The conclusion, “some non-barking things are non-dogs” is also a true statement (my toothbrush, which is a non-dog, does not bark), but this does not matter either.  What does matter, is that it does not logically follow.  Don’t be misled by truth!  Focus on the form of the argument.  If we substitute other terms we can see the fallacy more clearly:

Some humans are mortal.

Therefore, some immortals are non-human. (contraposition)

By using the word, “some”, we are not asserting that there are definitely some that are not.  Above, just by saying that some humans are mortal, we automatically are saying that there are others who are not mortal.  Therefore, our conclusion is supposing a group that does not exist, thus fallacious.

Exception: None, but remember that the following type “A” and type “O” forms are valid:

All P are Q.

Therefore, all non-Q are non-P.


Some P are not Q.

Therefore, some non-Q are not non-P.

Explanation: Using the type “A” form, let’s say that all humans are mortals.  The contraposition: all immortals are non-human.  Not only does this make sense in terms of truth, but it follows necessarily from the premise; therefore, it is valid (and not a fallacy).

Tip: Don’t give up on formal fallacies!  Once you get it, it actually will help you in everyday reasoning.


Welton, J. (1896). A Manual of Logic. W. B. Clive.

Registered User Comments

Krista Neckles
Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 04:37:16 PM
Hello Sir,

Could you tell me if the following inference commits an illicit contraposition fallacy:
All children that are destined to succeed in life are children with high-self-esteem
Therefore, no children with low self-esteem are children who are destined to succeed in life.
Are there any other fallacies committed? Thank You in advance Sir.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Bo Bennett, PhD
Wednesday, September 04, 2019 - 07:53:28 AM
Start by simplifying what you have:

All P are Q.
Therefore, no non-Q are P.

All humans are mortal.
Therefore, no non-mortals (immortals) are human.

This is not this fallacy or any fallacy - it is valid form. Of course, the premises are not true, but that is not your question.

login to reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Krista Neckles
Thursday, June 06, 2019 - 01:55:09 PM
Hello Sir,
In the textbook I am reading I am supposed to use obversion to this given statement:"Some non-A are non-B". But I am confused because when I do that it looks like this:
"Some non-A are not not non-B"
What would I do then? I apologize for asking on the wrong page.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Bo Bennett, PhD
Thursday, June 06, 2019 - 02:21:06 PM
I am not familiar with "obversion." Perhaps you can post this on our forum.

login to reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:

Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.

About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2019, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.