If Ramirez is a member of the animal rights society, then he opposes cockfighting. Ramirez opposes cockfighting. Therefore Ramirez is a member of the animal rights society. Identify the fallacy in the above argument.

The argument affirms the consequent.

Its form is: if Ramirez is a member (P), then he opposes cockfighting (Q).

The second premise affirms Q, that he opposes cockfighting.

From Q it wrongly concludes P, that he is a member.

Q may be true for other reasons, so P does not follow.

Deriving P from a conditional plus Q is affirming the consequent.