Suppressed Correlative
The Suppressed Correlative fallacy occurs when one redefines a correlative term so that one of the mutually exclusive options becomes impossible, rendering the term meaningless.
THE IDEA
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.
The source omits its logical form and original example statements.
Example #1:
Explanation: Redefining hungry as “being able to eat” makes almost anyone capable of eating count as hungry, even immediately after a meal. This erases a useful distinction between appetite and physical capacity.
Example #2:
Explanation: The source says Cal’s definition would make no car count as “fast”, removing the intended contrast. Kent’s and Cal’s original statements are absent, so the proposed standard cannot be examined here.
Distinction: Rejecting a false dichotomy does not necessarily erase a useful contrast. In example #1, hunger can vary in degree. The source also mentions Tina, whose words are missing, and says she did not make “not hungry” impossible by definition.
When to use it
Checking whether a definition of progress classifies every possible change as progress, leaving no room for deterioration.
Examining whether a product claim redefines improvement so that every outcome, including poorer performance, counts as improvement.
Questioning a definition that calls everyone capable of smiling happy, regardless of how they feel.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Example #1 - Redefining hungry
Defining hunger as “being able to eat” could classify a person who has just finished a meal as hungry merely because they could eat more. It collapses the intended appetite distinction into physical capacity.
Example #2 - Redefining fast car
The source says Cal’s proposed standard would exclude every car from being “fast”. Without the original exchange, the example cannot show exactly how the standard removes the contrast.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you identify a situation where someone redefined a term to make its opposite impossible?
How does the Suppressed Correlative fallacy differ from a simple redefinition of terms?
Why is it important to preserve the contrast between correlatives in logical argumentation?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies