When we see a result is missing and quickly assume the cause didn’t exist either.
Definition:
The inverse error fallacy happens when someone mistakenly reverses a cause-and-effect or conditional relationship. Typically, when it is said “if A happens, then B will follow”, the person mistakenly concludes: “if B does not happen, then A did not happen either”. Yet this inference is not valid.
Here, it should be noted that just because a result is missing doesn’t mean the cause is absent. The cause might exist, but the result may be delayed or hidden by other factors. For example:
“If oppression exists in society, people will protest. Since people are not protesting, there is no oppression in society.”
This is a false conclusion, because people may remain silent due to fear, repression, distrust, or despair—not because oppression does not exist. Such reasoning is a clear example of the inverse error fallacy.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- If A happens, then B will usually follow. [Main premise]
- B has not happened. [Observation]
- Therefore, A has not happened either. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, the reasoner wrongly assumes that there is only one way for B to occur, or that if B is not observed, then A never existed at all [1].
Examples from real life:
1. In politics and human rights:
a) If a government is dictatorial, human rights will be violated there. [Main premise]
This government is not dictatorial. [Observation]
Therefore, human rights are not violated there. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument wrongly assumes only dictators can violate human rights. In reality, non-dictatorial governments may also violate rights for reasons such as structural corruption, legal discrimination, or institutionalised inequality.
This fallacy is often seen in the official discourse of many governments or international bodies, where poor human rights conditions are justified with the slogan “we are democratic”, thereby concealing the real problems.
b) If children in those Stockholm kindergartens had been deliberately underfed, parents would have complained and the authorities would have stopped the couple who owned them [2]. [Main premise]
In this case, no complaint was filed and the kindergartens are still operating. [Observation]
Therefore, the underfeeding of children did not happen. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument wrongly assumes that since no complaints were filed, or complaints failed due to flaws in the Swedish judicial system, the reports of children being underfed must be untrue. In reality, the truth is exactly the opposite: a national television network in Sweden released a documentary showing clear footage of systematic underfeeding of young children in a chain of kindergartens.
Even if none of the parents lodged complaints, or their complaints led to no result, the failure of judicial and supervisory bodies to act cannot invalidate this visual evidence. The Swedish government had a responsibility to intervene to safeguard children’s rights, but this duty was not fulfilled—and this very silence and inaction has been used as a reason to deny the reality of violations of children’s rights.
This is precisely the inverse error fallacy: because no result is observed (such as the closure of the kindergarten or legal action), it is wrongly concluded that underfeeding did not occur at all.
Such reasoning is not only false but dangerous, as it leads to the deception of public opinion, the normalisation of wrongdoing, and injustice against the most vulnerable members of society—namely, children.
2. In education:
If a student has studied, they should get a good grade. [Main premise]
This student did not get a good grade. [Observation]
Therefore, they did not study. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that a low grade can result from many factors such as anxiety, unequal education, family difficulties, or marking mistakes. Such reasoning can lead to unfairly blaming students or ignoring discriminatory structures.
3. In consumer economy:
a) If a product is counterfeit, its price is low. [Main premise]
This product has a high price. [Observation]
Therefore, it is not counterfeit. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that a high price does not necessarily mean authenticity. Some counterfeit products are deliberately sold at high prices to appear genuine.
This fallacy is used in advertising to win customer trust without revealing the product’s real quality.
b) If a cream is expensive, it is usually effective. [Main premise]
This cream is cheap. [Observation]
Therefore, this cream is ineffective. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument wrongly assumes only expensive creams can be effective. In reality, a high price is not necessarily a sign of quality or efficacy, and many pharmacy or locally produced creams may deliver the same or even better results at lower cost.
This type of fallacy is common in cosmetic branding, where price is exaggerated to nudge consumers towards the faulty inference that “if it’s cheap, it must be ineffective”.
This is exactly the inverse error: because a particular cream is cheap, it is concluded that it is ineffective, even though there is no real reason for this conclusion.
4. Everyday life:
a) If someone has a fever, they are probably ill. [Main premise]
This person does not have a fever. [Observation]
Therefore, they are not ill. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this reasoning wrongly assumes fever is the sole sign of illness. In fact, many illnesses can occur without an elevated body temperature.
This fallacy may appear in everyday conversations or in uninformed medical decision-making. For example, a person may show other symptoms, but since they have no fever, their illness is ignored.
This is the inverse error: because no fever is observed, it is mistakenly concluded that there is no illness.
Such reasoning can lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment, and even to misunderstandings about one’s own or others’ health condition.
b) If someone is late, there is usually traffic. [Main premise]
Today there was no traffic. [Observation]
Therefore, they did not arrive late. [False conclusion = Fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this reasoning wrongly assumes traffic is the only possible reason for lateness. In reality, many other factors such as oversleeping, forgetfulness, or poor planning can also cause delays.
This is the inverse error: because there was no traffic today, it is mistakenly concluded that the person did not arrive late, whereas the absence of traffic is by no means proof of punctuality.
Such reasoning may occur in everyday conversations or at work, used to deny reality or to shift blame, leading individuals to avoid responsibility for their behaviour or to mislead others.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- Because it oversimplifies causal relationships and leads us to false conclusions.
- It can be used in politics, education, and advertising to cover up reality, excuse irresponsible behaviour, and maintain injustice.
- It trains the mind to adopt a simplistic view of the world instead of engaging in careful analysis.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
If you come across an argument that says, “Since the result has not happened, the cause did not exist either,” ask yourself:
– Is the supposed cause really the only possible way to reach this result?
– Could it be that the cause exists, but the result has not yet appeared?
A suitable response might be: “In this argument, since the result is not seen, you have assumed that the cause did not exist either; whereas the result may not have appeared yet, or the cause may have operated through another path.”
Conclusion:
The inverse error fallacy reminds us not to look only at a missing result and assume the cause was absent as well.
In a world where phenomena are complex and multi-causal, such reasoning leads us into analytical errors, unfair judgements, and acceptance of false advertising.
Recognising this fallacy brings us closer to clearer understanding, more independent thinking, and fairer dialogue.
[1] In this text, we use the labels Main premise, Observation, and False conclusion = Fallacy to make the logical steps clearer for a general audience. In formal logic, however, the structure is usually presented as If P then Q (conditional premise), Not P (denial of antecedent), and Therefore, not Q (invalid inference). We deliberately chose simpler wording to enable readers without a background in formal logic to follow the examples more easily, while the academic equivalents remain Conditional premise, Denial of antecedent, and Invalid conclusion.
[2] The scandal of “Hälsans förskola” in Sweden has a long history. Founded by a couple in 2007, the institution had resorted to underfeeding children at least several years before 2014, as revealed that year in an investigative report by Swedish Television (link one). However, that was not the end of the story: after renaming the institution “Tellusgruppen,” the owners continued the same practices. In 2023, Swedish national media once again headlined the hunger of children in this chain of kindergartens (link two).
1.https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/tillvaxt-och-expandering
2.https://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/a/4oVlJ6/barnens-hunger-ingar-i-forskolans-affarsmodell