Customer Reviews

Student Solutions CD to accompany The Logic Book (NAI)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I used this for my sophomore level logic course, as the previous reviewer. I do agree that trees get large, but I think tree is the right method for showing some statements are consistent, equivalent etc.

This book spends too many words (and examples) on the trivial issues and it is sometimes difficult to find the key points. I am very quick to get bored with trivial examples and tend to stop reading before I get all important points.

This book poorly utilizes graphics. I wish the book summarized key points using simple tables or lists. Perhaps you like to make your own graphic summary as you read (I did).

I give four stars because the coverage is good but not five because of the reasons I said above.

This logic textbook covers sentential and predicate logic. There are chapters on semantics, syntax, derivations, truth-trees and metatheory. Each chapter also contains many examples and exercises.
In my opinion, the chapters on truth-trees and derivations are the best. I found this book's method for universal and existential generalization and instantiation much easier to apply than the method introduced in some other textbooks. The most difficult chapters are those on metatheory.
I would have liked more guidance on constructing proofs in English and a more general outline of the method for mathematical induction. Standard paraphrases are introduced and rigorously applied for translating from English to SL but unfortunately not for translating from English to PL, which is more difficult.
I agree with a previous reviewer that this book could have made better use of graphics. There are some tables and boxes for definitions, strategies and lists of rules, but perhaps not enough. There are glossaries at the end of most chapters, but these could be extended.
While this book does not require any previous exposure to logic, it may prove difficult for many without this exposure or a patient instructor. Whether this textbook will be helpful to you probably also depends on your interests in logic. I was not interested in the chapters on metatheory. The book does not cover inductive, traditional, modal, epistemic or deontic logic.
Copi's "Introduction to Logic", Gensler's "Introduction to Logic" and Kahane and Tidman's "Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction" are easier and more user friendly than this book and introduce some important areas of logic not covered in this book. If you want a good introduction to logic to help you evaluate and construct arguments for philosophy, then I recommend any of these three books. For those who want a more difficult and focused introduction I recommend "The Logic Book".

It is unfortunate that Mr. Morriss had such difficulty with his logic course, especially since he is both a philosophy student and has been able to maintain a respectable GPA. As any student of philosophy knows, however, any one of a number of things could have brought about the 'D' on the midterm for the unfortunate fifty percent of his fellow students.

My experience with this text and (perhaps, therefore) with my undergraduate logic class in general was considerably more enjoyable than Mr. Morriss's experience. Certainly my professor was very good at presenting the material, but presumably he was not making up for a poorly written book. For, when I needed to consult the text, I found it actually to be quite clear and helpful.

Turning to the book itself, since I am not a fan of truth trees, when I have the opportunity to teach my own logic course, I will utilize proofs. I have viewed many undergraduate logic texts, and the proof method presented in this text seems the clearest.

Furthermore, as my logic professor told me and his professor told him: Logic is not in the head; it's in the fingers. Therefore, I think that the considerable amount of exercises contained in this text is greatly beneficial.

Third, definitions of terms and important points are presented clearly in text boxes throughout the book. Students will benefit greatly by committing these terms and points to memory.

Finally, although the price is prohibitive (hence, four stars), Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson's text has withstood the test of time. (In fact, the 4th edition is supposed to be out this summer.) Such evidence is not conclusive, but it suggests that perhaps lying behind Mr. Morriss's frustration is a cause more complex than merely this classic text.

This book might be a good addition to the library of a self-studier who has an ample amount of time or perhaps has little experience in logic or mathematics. Its explicitness really helps on the more difficult chapters, although this can frustrate, too, because it's hard to study when the rules aren't laid out in one particular spot. But overall, it's not so bad.

This one's okay. A bit dry and tedious, but okay. There are better logic textbooks out there, though. If you're a philosophy major, I'd recommend either Harry Gensler's or Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. They're much more interesting than this one. If you're a comp-sci major, you'd be better served by books specifically devoted to digital logic. For philosophy majors who want to go beyond basic logic, I highly recommend books by Graham Priest, particularly his Intro to Non-Classical Logic.

This book has remained in my library (thumbed to pieces, which is why I now seek a new copy) since I took symbolic logic in the summer of 1995 on the way to my undergraduate degree at Arizona State University. I have to say that out of the many logic texts I have seen, this is by far one of the finest around. I won't belabor any of the excellent points made by the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas, but I will add that this is an immaculate reference for any student of logic, though he or she should have the benefit of being able to seek the guidance of a seasoned professional should difficulties arise.

Contrary to my compatriot from Lubbock,though, I find the time spent on truth trees to be entirely beneficial. While the derivations are definitely the grandest exercise in formal logic, their focus on the validity or invalidity of an argument leaves them to fail to show the one thing that truth trees reveal, that is, the truth conditions of any given proposition.

Please do not let the naysayers detract you from using this book as a text if you are undertaking the task of teaching logic. It is rather common that symbolic logic is the ruination of many a philosophy major's GPA. For me, however, I found this book extremely easy to follow and comprehend. The ample exercises, most with answers and explanations provided, only add to the worth of this classic text. Few logic books can compare with this fine instrument.

This book has cost me innumerable hours of frustration and grief. It appears as though it was written to be intentionally vague, as if the authors only desired to display their own prowess at their subject, with very little regard for pedagogy. One gets the feeling that the authors are merely stating facts about Sentential Logic rather than devising pedagogical tactics to make the subject easy to learn by students of all levels. None of these criticisms take into account the equally frustrating, but less important fact, that the book is riddled with typographical errors and inaccuracies, of which I have been enumerating and will reveal on my web site soon.

I am a philosophy junior at the University of Arizona and my GPA is 3.89. Suffice it to say that my problems with this book are probably not because I am a moron; however, if you don't believe that, then for more evidence consider that roughly 50% of the class using this book scored a "D" or worse on the midterm.

Sentential Logic crosses into several different disciplines. It is a component of course tracks for computer science majors, philosophy majors, and of course mathematics majors. It is a terrible mistake to have written a book that appears to assume that its audience is highly inclined towards mathematics, and that simple, straightforward explanations of the material are unnecessary.

As a student who is also a working adult professional, this book has cost me money far above its purchase price. I have spent numerous hours wasting my professor's precious time asking for clarifications and searching the web for alternative publications and sites with assistance. When you are a working adult, having such a vague and poorly written textbook takes hours away from the times that I could be out earning a living while earning my degree. To be fair, nearly all college textbooks are over-priced. However, this one has failed to perform so badly that the price stings even worse.

To instructors seeking to use this book, I caution you against doing so unless you are merely going to use it as an outline for your lectures and you intend to spend a great deal of class time and office hours working with students. Take into consideration, for instance, that the introduction to Sentential Derivation is a mere two pages long before it piles deep into rules without answering even the most basic of questions such as why we're even doing derivation at all!

To the student, I caution you to drop your course if this book is the required text. If you can take the course somewhere else or with a different instructor who uses a different text, then you should do it. Otherwise, plan to spend time with your professor during office hours and plenty of time trying to figure out SL/SD on your own or with a tutor.

This book is simply as good as it gets, straight- forward and clear.
Easy to read and the examples are to the point. I would recommend this book to anyone wanting a course in logic.

I have purchased and had a logic class using this book. On the one hand this book is excellent for the seasoned logic student. It really is. On the other hand unless you have an understanding text-supplementing professor, and unless you are seasoned logic student, then in my opinion this book is simply an 'unfair read', if not an incomprehensible read, even to the clever student. Only after learning Metalogic from other sources, was this book eventually treasured by myself for what it is. I have read the many comments here and they all seem genuinely on target. For a great introduction to Metalogic try a 1971 book called Metalogic(Hunter)UCP. Geoffrey Hunter's book is the ABC's of Metalogic. Also, I agree the 'assumptions' this book makes are riduculous. The very 'assumptions' that baffled me contradicted the very concept of step-by-step logical reasoning that the book was supposed to advocate. ( In my opinion if you think there were no assumptions in this book, then its because you knew of them from other sources.) Also, the book seemed to 'hide' or transform standard logic terms such as, for example 'prenix formulaes' for non-standard terms. So in my opinion you must know alternative terminonlogy before you can understand what some chapters are talking about. How I scrambled (and I know others did too) to keep up!Only after knowing the intermediate steps, does the LOGIC BOOK show, upon reflection, its true and genuine glory, but by then its too late, and your GPA has gone up in smoke. But if you really want a LOGIC BOOK to step you all the way to Metalogic, then this book really is the one to get. This is my opinion based on experiences using this book. All of my really intelligent graduate classmates (sharp as pins!) groaned at the use of this book. It is fair question to ask as to why logic, using this book, turned, for my class, into a genuine life-altering GPA busting nightmare. However, and again, in the wee hours of the night, I do see the wealth that this book offers, and it is, genuinely, a pleasure to posess. 'Heads up!' Dig?

This book was used as a college level text for a Philosophy course in introductory Logicc. As a guide to SL, I found it easy to understand and informative when in conjunction with a structured lecture.