If Sneha tampered with the examination script, then she is guilty of a crime. Sneha did not tamper with the examination script. Therefore Sneha is not guilty of a crime. Which fallacy is committed in the above argument?

The argument invalidly infers the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.

The conditional is 'if Sneha tampered, then she is guilty.'

The second premise denies the antecedent by stating she did not tamper.

Concluding she is not guilty ignores that guilt could arise from other causes.

Denying the antecedent and then denying the consequent is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.