Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!

# Suppressed Correlative

(also known as: fallacy of lost contrast, fallacy of the suppressed relative)

Description: The attempt to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. The redefinition, therefore, makes the word it is redefining essentially meaningless.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims that all things are either X or not X (the correlatives: X–not X).

Person 2 defines X such that all things that you claim are not X are included in X (the suppressed correlative: not X).

Example #1:

Rick: I need to know if we should stop for lunch or not.  You are either hungry or not hungry, which is it?

Tina: If being hungry is being able to eat, I am always hungry.

Explanation: If we redefine hungry as, “being able to eat” then except for the few occasions where people are medically incapable, everyone is always hungry, and it has lost all meaning.

Example #2:

Kent: My new car is really fast.

Cal: I doubt that it is as fast as a jet fighter so, therefore, it is not fast.

Explanation: In Kent’s statement, there is an implied correlative, that is, his car is either fast or not fast.  Now if what Cal says is true, then no cars would ever be considered “fast,” and speed would lose all meaning for cars.

Exception: Refusing to give into a false dichotomy is not the same as committing the suppressed correlative fallacy.  In example #1, while one cannot be both hungry and not hungry, one can be a little bit hungry.

Rick: I need to know if we should stop for lunch or not.  You are either hungry or not hungry, which is it?

Tina: I am a little bit hungry, so go ahead and stop if you are hungry otherwise I can wait.

Note that this fallacy is not committed because Tina did not attempt to redefine “hungry,” so “not hungry” is essentially impossible.

References:

Shafer-Landau, R. (2007). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. John Wiley & Sons.

Krista Neckles
Saturday, March 17, 2018 - 02:41:50 PM
Hello Sir,

I apologize for the constant questions. If someone were to say something like "Everybody is beautiful", or "Everybody is gifted" would that person be committing the fallacy of suppressed correlative? The reason I ask this is because I think that the word "beautiful" is a relative term that entails that someone is physically more attractive than other people they encounter. If everybody is beautiful, the use of the word would become less meaningful. I think the same issue would also apply to the indiscriminate use of the word gifted. Am I correct?

Thank you Sir.

2 replies

working...

Bo Bennett, PhD
Sunday, March 18, 2018 - 03:35:51 PM
Those sayings are not fallacious (they are not in the context of argumentation) but as you point out, they are very subjective terms and clear expressions of opinion.

working...

Krista Neckles
Sunday, March 18, 2018 - 06:29:15 PM

working...

### Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:

### Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.

Website Software Copyright 2019, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.