语调谬误中经常包括断章取义的谬误，而且确实存在很强的相似性。亚里士多德最初的重音谬误仅指将重音转移到单词内的音节上，而在现代谬误讨论中，它已经延伸到将重音转移到句子内单词之间。把重点进一步扩展到整个段落，可能有点过分了。因此，“断章取义”的概念有自己的章节。

断章取义地引用某人是什么意思？毕竟，每一个引文都必须排除原材料的大部分，因此是一个“断章取义”的引文。这是一种谬误，它采用了选择性的引语，扭曲、改变甚至颠倒了原本的意思。这可能是偶然的，也可能是故意的。

反讽的作用

关于口音谬误的讨论中已经暗示了一个很好的例子：反讽。在书面形式下，具有讽刺意味的陈述可能会被认为是错误的，因为很多讽刺是通过说话时的强调来传达的。然而，有时，通过添加更多的材料，这种反讽会更清楚地传达出来。例如：

1. This has been the best play I've seen all year! Of course, it is the only play I've seen all year. 2. This was a fantastic movie, as long as you aren't looking for plot or character development.

在这两篇评论中，你都从一个讽刺的观察开始，然后是一个解释，说明前面的内容是要讽刺而不是字面意义上的。对于评论者来说，这可能是一种危险的策略，因为不择手段的推广者可能会这样做：

3. John Smith calls this "the best play I've seen all year!" 4. "...a fantastic movie..." - Sandy Jones, Daily Herald.

在这两种情况下，原材料的段落都是断章取义的，因此给出了与预期完全相反的含义。因为这些段落被用于暗示其他人应该来看这部戏或电影，所以除了不道德之外，它们还被定性为谬误。

向当局上诉

你在上面看到的也是另一个谬论的一部分，诉诸权威，它试图通过诉诸权威人士的意见来说服你相信这个命题的真理；不过，通常情况下，它会诉诸于他们的实际意见，而不是扭曲的意见。引用断章取义的谬论与诉诸权威相结合并不罕见，而且在神创论者的争论中也经常发现。

例如，这里有一段来自查尔斯·达尔文（Charles Darwin）的话，经常被神创论者引用：

5. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 10

显然，这意味着达尔文怀疑自己的理论，遇到了一个他无法解决的问题。但让我们从下面两句话的上下文来看这句话：

6. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed...

现在很明显，达尔文并没有提出疑问，而是简单地用一种修辞手段来介绍他自己的解释。达尔文关于眼睛发育的引文也使用了完全相同的策略。

最新的观点

这些方法不仅限于神创论者。这里引用了托马斯·亨利·赫胥黎（Thomas Henry Huxley）的一句话，这句话被怀疑论者鲁斯特（Rooster）用在了另类无神论上：

7. "This is ... all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity."

这句话的目的是试图论证，根据赫胥黎的观点，不可知论的“基本”是否认存在我们应该相信的命题，即使我们没有逻辑上令人满意的证据。然而，这段话歪曲了原文：

8. I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity. [emphasis added]

如果你注意到，短语“它是不可知论的全部要素”实际上指的是前面的一段。因此，赫胥黎不可知论的“本质”在于，当人们没有“逻辑上证明”这种确定性的证据时，他们不应该声称自己对某些想法是确定的。因此，采用这一基本原则的后果导致不可知论者否定了这样一种观点，即当我们缺乏令人满意的证据时，我们应该相信事物。

草人辩论

另一种使用断章取义的谬误的常见方法是结合稻草人的论点。在这种情况下，有人被断章取义，因此他们的立场似乎比实际情况更弱或更极端。当这个错误的立场被驳斥时，作者假装他们驳斥了原作者的真实立场。

上面的大多数例子本身并不符合论点的条件。但是，无论是显式的还是隐式的，将它们视为论点中的前提并不罕见。当这种情况发生时，就犯下了谬论。在那之前，我们所拥有的只是一个错误。