Customer Reviews

A Rulebook for Arguments

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

A college applicant allegedly wrote the following one-word essay to describe himself: "Concise." While I was tempted to coopt that entire essay as a review for this book, ultimately I decided to be more verbose: first, some general remarks about the relevance of this book, then a summary of its content.

I often lament that the mythical "average person" does not appreciate what counts as evidence, nor distinguish between prejudice and rational conclusion. This is particularly evident in the realm of politics, where inflammatory rhetoric is the rule and rational argument the exception. If this tiny book (or its equivalent) were required reading for every high school senior, or college freshman, I wager there would be a wholesale shift in the texture and value of day-to-day discourse. No longer would we hear "Don't vote for that crook!", but the more sober, albeit prolix, application of modus tollens, "Public office requires honesty. Jones is dishonest. Therefore, Jones should not be elected to public office."

Of course, "Don't vote for that crook!" will never be abandoned for the simple reason that it is good tight prose. Yet, wouldn't it be grand if it were crystal clear to everyone that it is simply shorthand for the more prolix version? I claim that it would, for then we would be apt to challenge such a remark with "What evidence do you have that Jones is dishonest?", rather than "Would you rather I vote for that child molester, Smith?" The latter invites further character assassination of Jones, if not impeachment of his entire lineage. Perhaps I'm just a stuffy academic, but I can't help thinking that the introduction of a bit of cool logic into every-day discourse would lower our collective blood pressure and maybe, just maybe, allow us to occasionally see beyond our prejudices.

This wonderful little book lists 44 specific suggestions, or "rules", for injecting much-needed logic into argumentative discourse. In the author's words, each rule is "illustrated and explained soundly but above all briefly"; Hence, to Weston the book is a "rulebook" not a textbook. Weston continues "In this book, 'to give an argument' means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion." This is in contrast to the variety accompanied by loud invective and broken china.

Throughout the book, Weston offers advice that we would all do well to remember. For example, he reminds us that one can neither craft nor analyze an argument by merely consulting our prejudices, and that "it is your reasons, not your language, that must persuade." With regard to language, Weston asserts that prejudicial or loaded language "preaches only to the converted, but careful presentation of the facts can itself convert." Moreover, "It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." Well put.

Weston also injects some broadly applicable principles of critical thinking (although he does not label them as such). For instance, in contemplating possible solutions, explanations, or causes, he urges us to continually look for more options, rather than immediately narrowing them. In so doing, we can state our case more fairly, and possibly head off objections more effectively. But perhaps the most important admonition is this: "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." Imagine a world in which all disputants took this to heart!

Beginning with short arguments consisting of a sentence or two, Weston builds to a chapter on crafting effective long arguments. As usual, Weston anticipates common blunders and warns us, for example, to first "find out what each side considers the strongest arguments for its position." He then prepares us for the inevitable process of rewriting and reorganizing our arguments as we accumulate evidence and analyze positions on all sides. He coolly advises us to adopt a different strategy, or even a different conclusion, should we discover that our initial inclinations are not adequately supported by the available evidence. While this may seem obvious, it would be wonderful if everyone actually did this.

Weston provides some concrete advice on writing, such as developing one idea per paragraph, getting to the point quickly, and stating the conclusion clearly and directly. According to Weston, you ought not "fence more land than you can plow. One argument well-developed is better than three only sketched." To do otherwise would be like "preferring ten very leaky buckets to one well-sealed one." Finally, Weston urges us to preemptively raise possible counter-arguments and to develop them in sufficient detail that our readers will fully appreciate the position we are disarming.

The book includes a short but helpful chapter on fallacies, focusing primarily on the two "great fallacies" of generalizing from incomplete information and overlooking alternative explanations. One angle that I found illuminating is that several classic fallacies are in fact species of "overlooking alternatives", such as "affirming the consequent", "denying the antecedent", and "false dilemma". Several fallacies were discussed in this chapter that I have not encountered elsewhere, at least not by these names: specifically, the fallacies of "persuasive definition", "poisoning the well", "provincialism", and "weasel words". All are tersely but amply illustrated. Weston concludes with a brief chapter on definitions, of which there are several varieties: stipulative, operational, essential, and genus-and-differentia. I found these distinctions to be equally illuminating. As Richard Feynman said, "To name a thing is not the same as to know a thing", yet it is often a step in the right direction.

In summary, I found this book to be an excellent guide to crafting effective arguments. Although I have studied formal logic fairly extensively, and even informal logic to a lesser degree, this book left me with many new ideas, and made familiar old ideas suddenly more cogent and relevant. And, it's concise.

When I was studying as an undergraduate, I toyed with the idea of becoming a philosophy major. I ultimately did not pursue that particular field (opting for the areas of politics and religious studies, then venturing on to history, mathematics, astronomy, and ultimately theology) but I did take among my earliest courses a sequence of lectures in logic, including symbolic logic. I cannot express the value of this training adequately for all of my subsequent courses of study, but I also find it difficult to recommend the 700-page textbook to my students today who have problems crafting arguments and seeing the problems inherent in certain types of argumentation when they have little grounding and even less time for formal logic.

This is where this book by Weston comes in most handy. Weston's 'A Rulebook for Arguments' is a concise, accessible and very practical book for anyone looking to write or craft persuasive, coherent and consistent lines of reasoning. The first chapter gives seven basic principles that anyone who wishes to convince or persuade should know, whether they be arguing before a judge, a debating panel, a teacher, or even in a friendly pub conversation -- principles such as using natural order of argumentation, avoiding loaded language, being consistent in terminology, and starting from realistic and reliable premises.

From these basic and reasonable pieces, Weston develops more formal systems for argumentation -- Arguments by Example, by Analogy, from Authority, about Causes, and Deductive Arguments. Each of these systems are useful in and of themselves, as well as in relation to each other, but all have specific rules for application. What constitutes an Argument from Authority, for example? Who or what is authoritative? What are the limitations on this type of argument? One thinks immediately of the family-based Argument from Authority, 'because I'm the mommy, that's why.' Perhaps it is just as well the average grade schooler won't be purchasing this book!

In all, there are 30 primary rules for argumentation. These are adapted into 14 primary steps for developing an argument in writing.

There are three chapters specifically devoted to composing an argumentative essay, focusing upon research into the issues being argued, developing the key points of the argument, and finally writing the narrative of the text of the argument. These are basic steps to be followed whether one is putting together a two-page persuasive essay for an introductory politics class or a 200-page dissertation for a doctorate in philosophy. Key points such as definition, outlines according to natural flow, and consistency reflect the seven principles from the simplest arguments shown above.

the final chapter looks at fallacies -- how do we know if an argument fails itself? The two most common fallacies -- generalising from incomplete information and overlooking alternatives are the most important problems with argumentation. The argument 'the streets are wet, so it must be raining,' fails because of both fallacies; the streets could be wet because of water pipes having burst, or because people are washing their cars and there is run-off -- the information is incomplete, and the alternatives are not explored. There are twenty-two fallacies named in all, lots of ways for arguments to go astray.

There are longer books on critical thinking; there are other texts on rhetoric and writing. Many of these are useful and worthwhile, however, for clarity and concise information, Weston's book is superb and a very present help for those in a time-crunch.

I have a habit of picking up thin books because I believe great authors should have the ability to summarize their ideas without sacrificing the clarity. Most importantly, it won't waste the reader's time.

The book is thin and inexpensive. Upon studying other customer reviews(mostly positive), I decided to give it a go. It has not disappointed me. Here're my thoughts:

Strengths:
In the first half of the book, the author has provided a useful checklist (rules) to assist the readers in developing good arguments. In the latter half, this is followed by some useful tips to help plan and write an argumentative essay. Overall, I have no problems understanding the ideas presented in the book, though some of the rules might sound a little trivial depending on the reader's background.

I also like the idea that the author is willing to suggest the readers to acquire further reading by listing some of his recommendations at the last 2 pages of the book. This certainly is a helpful source if the reader is eager to learn.

Weaknesses:
The author quite frequently jumps from one rule to another in his discussion. For example, when talking about Rule 19 (propose the most likely cause), he mentions Rule 10 (background information is crucial). Since there are a total of 30 rules (and some more tips in the latter numbered from A1, A2... to D3), it is inconvenient to recall what Rule 10 was when reading Rule 19. It would have been better if a proper indexing system exists.

For a similar reason, it would have been much more helpful if the author can very briefly summarize all his rules in 2-3 pages and put this part at the end. This would have been an especially helpful overview for a reader who just finishes an essay and would like to glance quickly at the list to see whether he/she has missed anything.

In sum, for its price and compact size, I consider it a useful addition to my library.

This introductory volume, slim and commendably affordable, takes a concise 'cookbook' approach. As the general reasoning skills discussed are useful in any academic discipline this book is for any student, or anyone wanting to write an report, essay, dissertation, or sharpen up examination answers, and is certainly of use to public speakers wishing to prove their point in a more effective and efficient way. It is probably also of interest to anyone in the 'knowledge worker' category, such as business analysis or systems analysis. As the title suggests it is rulebook as opposed to a textbook, taking a rule-of-thumb approach. It is a valuable adjunct to more discursive works, such the much older and more famous 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' by Thouless.

The chapters are: composing a short argument, arguments by example, arguments by analogy, arguments from authority, arguments about causes, deductive arguments (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc). And composing an argumentative essay (exploring the issue, main points of essay, writing), fallacies, and an appendix on definition.

Although there are no wasted words in this book, a work of this size has obvious limits; for instance there are no specific sections on reasoning with probability, inductive reasoning, or data analysis. Apart from the lack of statistical analysis, these deficiencies can probably be remedied by consulting 'Thinking from A to Z' by Warburton.

There are some small gems; the section on composing a short argument 'Use definite, specific, concrete language' could easily be subtitled 'How to puncture windbags'. His selected target is a wonderful eighty-word specimen of sociobabble (Talcott Parsons being his chosen victim), which he reduces to its thirteen-word equivalent - an 84% redundancy! Recommended.

I was lead to believe that this book was more detailed but that's a misunderstanding on my part. At the very end of the book the author writes "the subject of this book is usually labeled 'critical thinking'.....If you are a high school or college student and want to learn more about the subject, look for courses with these titles being offered in your school." This is a good point showing the type of reader which would benefit the most from this book. If you are a high school student or a college freshman, this book may be of interest to you. If you have taken some courses like mentioned above, or some philosophy courses or you are a maturer book reader, you will probably get little from this book. For instance, some of the sections (rules) are titled "seek impartial sources", "personal attack do not disqualify a source", "explore the arguments on all sides of the issue", etc. However, the author seems to have written the book for younger readers so the fact that it is too simplistic is not a negativity for the book, but just a point to take into consideration for the reader before deciding to buy it.

The book is short (87 pages) but concise. In a rule based format it shows how to approach an argument, how to reach a conclusion based on evidence instead of preconceived notions or prejudices, and how to explain your conclusion clearly. In the introduction, the author writes "Arguments are attempts to support certain views with reasons.....Argument in this sense is a means of inquiry". The first 30 rules of the book is about this inquiry. These rules are numbered 1 thru 30. Also in the introduction the author writes "Once we have arrived at a conclusion that is well supported by reasons, argument is how we explain and defend it. A good argument doesn't merely repeat conclusions. Instead it offers reasons and evidence so that other people can make up their minds for themselves". The second half of the book is about this definition of arguments. In 17 rules (numbered A1 thru D3) it shows how to plan and write an essay to explain your view on a subject. Another section called "fallacies", defines fallacies as misleading arguments and gives examples of some classical fallacies and shows why they are illogical or why they violate the rules of good arguments.

Potential buyers can click the "check inside" link at the top of this page and see the complete list of rules to get a better idea about the book. (When I wrote this review, "check inside" was available)

Overall, it is a concise, well-explained and beneficial book for the target readers.

Years ago a college writing professor recommended Will Strunk's "The Elements of Style." That slim volume distilled thorny thicket of grammar into a compact, easily understood guide to writing. I still have my thirty year old copy. As I read "A Rulebook for Arguments," I could not help but compare it to "The Elements of Style." Same format, same brevity, same quality. What "Elements" did for grammar, "Rulebook" does for rhetoric. I plan to follow the recommendation of "Rulebook's" final sentence: "Keep them ['Elements' & 'Rulebook'] together on a shelf somewhere, and don't let them gather dust!" They won't be far from the "Harbrace College Handbook" and "Thinking from A to Z."

This book is a good overview for constructing written arguments. Weston takes a step-by-step approach to formulating, organizing, then constructing an argument. It would be a very helpful book to students or anyone writing persuasive essays. It's fairly basic, but it never hurts to refresh, and Weston's examples are clear and entertaining. I would have liked a little more on deconstructing an argument and a broader range of persuasive approaches. But to be fair, that's a slightly different topic, and there is a good chapter on various false arguments (ad hominem, straw man, red herring, etc.). A good, quick, easy guidebook.

I do agree with the majority of reviewers here this little book does help to improve one's critical and logical thinking. However, I am obliged to comment that the degree of satisfaction depends much on a reader's previous experience with similar books and his/her level/background of education. That's nothing the matter with the capabilities of the author but apparently he had tailored his book to be as concise and easy to read as possible. In that respect, he had done a good job. For advanced readers, "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by Neil Browne" and "101 Philosophy Problems by Martin Cohen" would be more suitable.

I bought this book largely on the strength of the other reviews here, almost all of which are 5 stars.

This is a *short* book, which I read thoroughly in two and a half hours. It's also, however, cheap, so one can't complain about the length.

The book is essentially a clear list of well-denoted rules for logical arguments. However, nearly all of them are common-sensical. If you already know, for example, that correlation does not imply causation, and understand why this is, you can skip over about 9 of the 85 pages.

The chapter on fallacies I found similarly dissapointing. You probably already understand intrinsically that if the mail is invariably late when it snows, and the mail is late today, it did not necessarily snow; something else could have happened. The book also clears up any confusion by pointing out that a personal attack such as "he's wrong because he's black" is not a valid criticism of a source's qualifications. (If you need to be able to put the correct terms to this logic, the chapter might be more useful.)

Despite being a bit too rudimentary (even for someone like me, a high school senior who has had no formal training of this sort), A Rulebook for Arguments contains some moderately useful guidelines when it comes to issues like defining one's terms and sticking to them. Again, I wasn't impressed by the section on composing an essay, but I suppose it could be helpful to someone who has truly never written an essay that defended a thesis.

For the price, you could give it a shot. But I don't know if I'd pay even $6, given a second chance.

Anthony Weston has written one of the most useful books I have seen in years. In this slim volume he explains the rules to successful argument construction, beginning with the premise that an argument is not a disagreement, but rather is a collected series of statements used to establish the validity of a position.

While brief, the book explains in lucid text, readily grasped examples, and simple formulas the structure of logically valid arguments and also explains the nature of fallacies, and how to spot fallacious arguments.

I think that the most useful chapter in the book is chapter six, "Deductive Arguments." This chapter is mandatory reading for anyone who needs to understand logical reasoning, and is by far the most lucid and brief explanation of the six most common forms of deductive arguments that I have ever seen. The first three of these are fairly obvious, but the sections on hypothetical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to absurdity) constructions are somewhat less self-evident and should be thoroughly understood before proceeding with the remainder of the book. I also found the example of an advanced "modus tollens" (i.e., if p then q; not-q; therefore not-p) argument from astronomer Fred Hoyle regarding the origin of the universe and the one-way conversion of hydrogen into helium to be superior to (and more concise than) any other example of this construction I have seen in other books.

The final sections of the book deal with writing argumentative essays. This section is extremely useful to students, and I would recommend that students read this as early in their academic careers as possible (high school, possibly middle school for some students); certainly I recommend this to any college student: the lessons in the 87 pages of this book will enable a lifetime of discerning logic. Likewise, this book serves as an excellent introduction or review of basic logical argument construction for anyone, and is especially useful to people in careers such as law, labor negotiations, and journalism.

This is an excellent book. It is quick to read, but has powerful lessons. Keep it handy on your bookshelf.

I highly recommend this book.