Do not misrepresent documents/medical
literature in the Court of Law
When evidence is read into the record
of a trial, only that portion of the document, which validates the information
being discussed needs to be read aloud. One paragraph or even one part of a
paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point you are
making. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you
paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. Reading the remainder of the
document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and
time–consuming. When a document is cut in a manner, which lends the quoted
passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete
reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however,
that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as
the author of the document.
Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.
Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment