Final answer:
People are better at denying the antecedent than affirming the consequent in conditional reasoning.
Step-by-step explanation:
In conditional reasoning, people are better at denying the antecedent than affirming the consequent. Denying the antecedent occurs when the truth of the antecedent statement is denied to infer that the consequent is false. However, affirming the consequent is a fallacy because it affirms the truth of the consequent to infer the truth of the antecedent statement,
For example, let's consider the following conditional statement: If it is raining, then the ground is wet. If we affirm the consequent (the ground is wet), it doesn't necessarily mean that it is raining. There could be other factors, like sprinklers or a spilled drink, that made the ground wet.
Therefore, the correct answer is denying the antecedent.