Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Paperback)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A fine book on informal logic, also known as `critical thinking'... The treatment of topics throughout is thorough and meticulous; fine analytic distinctions, a large number of real life illustrations, and clear writing enhance the value of the work." Choice

"In a word, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation is the best book in the field I have come across in recent years." Roy Martinez, Teaching Philosophy

"...the book is well-written and provides easy to follow examples of different arguments and fallacies. For those who find current argumentation and debate books inadequate, Informal Logic fills a void." Thomas Murphy, Argumentation and Advocacy

"In a word, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation is the best book in the field I have come across in recent years." Roy Martinez, Teaching Philosophy

Product Description

This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, replying to, and criticizing questions, forms of valid argument, relevance, appeals to emotion, personal attack, uses and abuses of expert opinion, problems in deploying statistics, loaded terms, equivocation, and arguments from analogy.

Product Details

• Paperback: 310 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition edition (July 28, 1989)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521379253
• ISBN-13: 978-0521379250
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.4 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #52,149 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #35 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Logic & Language

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Don't You Agree That No Right Thinking Person Would Find Fault With This Book?, March 12, 2006

By	George R Dekle "Bob Dekle" (Lake City, FL United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

The title is an example of overly aggressive questioning and a fallacious attempt to end debate by labeling anyone who disagrees a dunce. In a courtroom the question would be disallowed on the legal grounds that it is argumentative. In the newsroom, the boardroom, and just about any other type of room where people gather to discuss issues, that type of question is asked every day.

Walton clearly (but ponderously) explains why questions of this type (and questions and arguments of many other types) are just plain wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. He not only explains why they're wrong, unlike other books on informal logic that I've read, he gives advice on how to answer them.

As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end.

Walton does tend to beat a dead horse, however. Although repetition is the surest method of teaching, as a rule of thumb, three repetitions of a point should suffice.

One other minor quibble. He is occasionally guilty of faulty analysis himself. In analyzing the hunter/anti-hunter debate, he said that the hunter's reply about meat eaters being in a poor position to criticize hunting was a weak argument. He found very little parallel between slaughtering innocent wild animals and eating hamburgers. The parallel is this: The objective of hunting is to eat what you kill. (If you're not dedicated to this proposition, stay out of the woods). In order to eat the hamburger, somebody has to slaughter the innocent cow for you. The difference between the hamburger eating anti-hunter and the venison eating hunter is who killed the food and whether they did it for sport or a paycheck.

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Good for GMAT preparation, September 9, 2000

By	Masatoshi Suzuki (France) - See all my reviews

As a non-native English speaker, I had a hard time to improve my score in GMAT critial reasoning section. By accident, I found the "Informal logic" category in Amazon and ordered 6 books. After reading all 6 books, I found this book was the easiest to read and the clearest to understand the basic reasoning steps that GMAT asks in the test. Also, in general, this book is helpful for people who study English.

13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent as a starting point, January 5, 1998

By	John L. Davis (Millersville, Maryland USA) - See all my reviews

Informal Logic exposes the reader to a formal analysis of their everyday thought. You will be able to use the material to recognize (and respond properly to) types of arguments and fallacies that previously had gone unrecognized. If you would like to become better at arguing your point, this is a good starting point.