Denying the Correlative
The fallacy of introducing a third alternative when a genuine binary choice exists, typically to avoid making a difficult decision or answering a direct yes/no question.
THE IDEA
Denying the Correlative
(also known as: denying the correlative conjunction)
Description: Introducing alternatives when in fact there are none. The alternatives must be both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The error is treating a supposed third option as an escape when it actually belongs within one of the alternatives.
Example #1: Rocco: "Paulie, did you take the money or not?" Paulie: "I did not take the money, Rocco. I invested it." Explanation: Rocco was asking a simple question, and out of personal safety, Paulie was committing the fallacy of denying the correlative by offering up another option to a choice that only had two. If Paulie were smarter, he could have not committed the fallacy and saved his kneecaps, by honesty and a little negotiation: "I invested it, but the fact is, I did invest the money I took."
Example #2: Finnegan: "Are you in command or not?" Captain Kirk: "No. I am not." Explanation: A “yes” or “no” would answer this question, and the supplied reply directly denies being in command. As written, it introduces no third alternative and does not illustrate the fallacy.
Exception: A proposed binary may itself be a false dilemma if it excludes genuine alternatives or misrepresents the possibilities. Check that the alternatives really exhaust the relevant options.
Tip: Don’t borrow money from anyone named Rocco.
When to use it
When a politician responds to a support-or-not question with criticism of a bill, checking whether the response states a position, leaves it unclear, or disputes the question’s assumptions.
In a negotiation, checking whether a proposed accept-or-lose-the-deal ultimatum really excludes further discussion. Negotiation may be a genuine alternative.
When a student answers a completion question by describing time spent studying, distinguishing the unanswered question from any actual claim to a third completion status.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Mobster's Loan
Rocco asks Paulie, 'Did you take the money or not?' Paulie replies, 'I did not take the money, Rocco. I invested it.' Paulie introduces a third option (investing) to avoid admitting he took the money, which was the only alternative to not taking it.
Captain Kirk’s Command: A Nonexample
Finnegan asks Captain Kirk, 'Are you in command or not?' Kirk replies, 'No. I am not.' This is a direct negative answer. Nothing in the supplied dialogue introduces another state or evades the question.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you think of a time in a debate or argument where someone avoided a direct binary question by introducing a distracting third option?
How can you identify when a 'middle ground' offered in a discussion is a legitimate alternative versus a fallacious denial of a genuine dilemma?
Why might a politician or public figure use the fallacy of denying the correlative in an interview?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies