If the statement is true, the contrapositive is true: if !Drive Home -> !Rain. So provided with the fact that I didn’t drive home, you can infer it didn’t rain.
Thus, the statement could be true, if you have driven home, but you did not provide such information.
Just because something is on the right hand side of an implication doesn't make it true. The statement A=>B is true iff A is false, or A is true and B is true at the same time.
Thus whether the statement is true depends entirely on whether it rained; but you can not infer that as both options yield a true statement.
This whole thread and chain is affirming the consequent.
> In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "if the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark"), and invalidly inferring its converse ("the room is dark, so the lamp must be broken"), even though that statement may not be true. This arises when the consequent ("the room would be dark") has other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off" or "there is no lamp in the room").
> Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes.
