Wouldn't that only be affirming the consequent if it were the following?: > If it rains, I drive home. I drove home. Therefore, it rained. <-- logical fallacy

Wouldn't that only be affirming the consequent if it were the following?: > If it rains, I drive home. I drove home. Therefore, it rained. <-- logical fallacy Because, for example, you could've driven home for some other reason. But that wasn't the statement. > If it rains, I drive home. I didn't drive home. Therefore, it didn't rain. How could it possibly have rained without violating the statement "If it rains, I drive home." given you didn't drive home?