Probabilistically speaking, affirming the consequent is often evidence (though perhaps usually very weak evidence) of the antecedent.
Imagine someone says to you: If my husband has just come back from swimming, he'll be wet.
Then a few minutes later, her husband walks in and he looks quite wet.
Is he DEFINITELY wet because he went swimming? No. But is it fair to surmise that he's probably wet for that reason? Yeah, I think so, unless you take a peek outside and it's raining or something.