Final answer:
The statement is true: using "if and only if" corrects a converse error by establishing a biconditional relationship where both the antecedent and the consequent are necessary and sufficient for each other, ensuring that the converse is also true.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement is true: prefacing the antecedent with "If and only if" can correct a converse error. A converse error, also known as affirming the consequent, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the truth of the consequent is assumed to prove the truth of the antecedent. This is invalid because the truth of the consequent does not necessitate the truth of the antecedent.
However, when a statement is made using "if and only if", it establishes a biconditional relationship, meaning both the antecedent and consequent are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other. In other words, the truth of one guarantees the truth of the other and vice versa. For example, the statement "X if and only if Y" means that X is true exactly when Y is true, and Y is true exactly when X is true. This biconditional relationship ensures that the converse, "Y if and only if X", is also true.
To correct a converse error, one must demonstrate that the relationship is truly biconditional. Simply put, correcting a converse error requires showing or proving that both conditions are necessary and sufficient for one another, thereby avoiding the fallacy of affirming the consequent.