Removing a statement from context changes its intended meaning
Evidence
By dipping into the Otter Tail opinion and picking out a single sentence, Lansdale is guilty of the common fallacy of vicious abstraction—the removal of a statement from its context, thereby changing its intended meaning. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1237
Categorization
- DEFINE: Names and defines the fallacy of vicious abstraction: removing a statement from its context to change its meaning.
- XREF: Connects to legal reasoning fallacies and how precedent is (mis)used by cherry-picking language from ratio decidendi. — connects to: Context alters the meaning of identical phrases in a confession — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 268; Redaction must not significantly alter the meaning of a defendant statement — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 271; Relying on isolated phrases ripped from context commits a fallacy — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1232
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1237
Broader Connections
- Context alters the meaning of identical phrases in a confession
#corroborates(0.90) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 268 - Relying on isolated phrases ripped from context commits a fallacy
#corroborates(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1232 - Redaction must not significantly alter the meaning of a defendant statement
#exemplifies(0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 271