Note on terminology 1:

The name of the fallacy is short-hand for “denying the correlative conjunction.”

A “correlative conjunction” is the relationship between a pair of statements that are mutually exclusive alternatives, with one of them being true and the other false. So, for example, the statements “Ginger is a cat” and “Ginger is not a cat” are said to have the relationship of “correlative conjunction.” If one argues that Ginger is something else than a cat or not a cat then one is fallaciously denying the correlative conjunction.

Note on terminology 2:

The correlative conjunction is relevant to three fallacies (the current fallacy and the next two fallacies), namely:

          Denying the Correlative
          False Correlative (aka, False Dichotomy)
          Suppressed Correlative

Example 1:

Policeman: “.. either you stole the money or you didn’t, which is it?”
Suspect: “… you are assuming that the money really exists….”

In the context of the question this is not a valid alternative: regardless of the existence of the money, the suspect either stole it or didn’t.

The suspect is denying the correlative because he implies that there is some other alternative than either stealing the money or not stealing the money.

Example 2:

Either all apples are green, or some apples are not green.
But what about apples that are both green and red?

The second sentence is denying the correlative because the supposed alternative of “apples that are both green and red” is actually subsumed in apples that are green (if “green” means that some of an apple’s skin is green) or is subsumed in “apples that are not green” (if green means that all of an apple’s skin is green).

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.