Consider this argument: "If Pepsi tasted better than Coke, then it would outsell Coke. But Pepsi does not taste better than Coke. So it will not outsell Coke." That argument is an example of .(a) the fallacy of denying the antecedent(b) the fallacy of affirming the consequent(c) a valid argument by affirming the antecedent(d) a valid argument by denying the consequent

The correct answer is A) the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Consider this argument: "If Pepsi tasted better than Coke, then it would outsell Coke. But Pepsi does not taste better than Coke. So it will not outsell Coke." That argument is an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

When we are talking about logic terms, denying the antecedent is a fallacy where the antecedent or premise is not valid so the consequence is not valid too. Also known as the inverse error, in simpler terms, the fallacy of denying antecedent imñies that in a conditional sentence (if...) the antecedent is denied. That is why in this answer, "If Pepsi tasted better than Coke, then it would outsell Coke. But Pepsi does not taste better than Coke. So it will not outsell Coke., the taste is not a direct conditional of the level of sales of Pepsi.

jacksonian era promoted strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of congress. it also sought to broaden the public's participation in government. the jacksonian's demanded to have elected judges, instead of appointed judges, and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. hope this ! if you did find it would you mind giving me brainliest? : )

this is called police cynicism. i hope this .