"If Ramirez is a member of the animal rights society; then he opposes cock fighting. Ramirez opposes cock fighting. Therefore Ramirez is a member of the animal rights Society." Identify the fallacy in the above argument.  

The correct answer is Affirming the consequent.
Important PointsThe argument follows the pattern of affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

• It assumes that if someone opposes cock fighting, it automatically implies that they are a member of the animal rights society.
• However, this is a flawed reasoning because there could be other reasons or motivations for opposing cock fighting that do not necessarily make someone a member of the animal rights society.

The argument incorrectly assumes that the statement "Ramirez opposes cock fighting" is sufficient evidence to conclude that Ramirez is a member of the animal rights society.

• This disregards the possibility of alternative reasons for opposing cock fighting, such as personal values, cultural beliefs, ethical considerations, or other organizations or groups that advocate against cock fighting.
• To make a valid argument, it would require additional evidence or premises that directly establish the relationship between opposing cock fighting and being a member of the animal rights society, rather than making a simplistic and unsupported assumption based on a single instance of opposition to cock fighting