Essentially, this fallacy links two things together (correlates) but assumes one of them is the only variable, and discounts other possible reasons. For example:
People who lack social skills will never find a partner.
So there are two things here, lacking social skills and finding a partner. To make this (illogical) statement work, you need to focus on lacking social skills. If you really look at the supposed correlate critically, then there would be many examples where this isn’t the case. For example, two people with poor social skills could meet online. So there are other correlatives (poor social skills, too much competition, not enough money) but they are being suppressed.
Only attractive people get dates
So there are two things here, being attractive and getting dates. So suppressing the correlative means saying that it is only this one variable, being attractive, that results in getting dates. But firstly, there would be a lot of evidence of ‘unattractive’ people getting dates, plus attractiveness is subjective and can’t be defined. But the suppression part means to not consider other variables. But there are a lot of variables considering whether a person can get a date or not.
I think of the game “whack-a-mole” when I think of this fallacy. You are focusing on one variable as the only reason, when there are actually all these other possibilities trying to pop up and you are whacking them down!