It's a fallacy, rather than a special case, because causality isn't commutative. 1. "If my code is secure, then I can't break it. (P → Q) 2. "If I can't break

It's a fallacy, rather than a special case, because causality isn't commutative. 1. "If my code is secure, then I can't break it. (P → Q) 2. "If I can't break my code, then it is secure." (Q → P) Concluding 2 from premise 1 falsely assumes (P → Q) → (Q → P). For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent