Denying the correlative
attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none
The informal fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. It is the opposite of the false dilemma, which is denying other alternatives. Its logical form is
Either X or not X,
therefore Y.
For example:
Judge: So did you kill your landlord or not?
Kirk: I fought with him.
In the context of a multiple choice question, the best answer must be chosen from the available alternatives. However, in determining whether this fallacy is committed, a close look at the context is required. The essence of denying the correlative is introducing an alternative into a context that logically admits none, but this itself could be taken as an indication that the context is irrational. Even if there are no implicit alternatives, (such as the right to remain silent), assumptions may need to be questioned and clarified or implications may require a disclaimer.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Denying the correlative” is attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Denying, correlative and attempt, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 2, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q2918196. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Denying the correlative”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Denying the correlative primary sources, Denying the correlative archive and Denying research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Denying the correlative”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Denying the correlative” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.