What do you think?
Rate this book
賰鬲丕亘 賲氐賵乇 毓賳 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘丕賱丨賷賱丞: 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞
賲賳 賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賴 賱賱賲亘鬲丿卅賷賳 賮賷 丨賯賱 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷貙 亘丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻賲賷賴賲 亘丕爻賰丕賱 賷賮賴賲賵賳 亘卮賰賱 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱氐賵乇 (氐賵乇賷賵賳). 賱賯丿 丕禺鬲乇鬲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 氐睾賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵氐賵乇鬲賴丕 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 乇爻賵賲丕鬲 爻賴賱丞 賱賱鬲匕賰乇貙 賲乇賮賯丞 亘丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞貙 賵丕賱兀賲賱 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 爻賷鬲毓賱賲 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 亘毓囟丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賲夭丕賱賯 賮賷 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賮賷爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲賲賷賷夭賴丕 賵鬲噩賳亘賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賲乇賷賳.
This book is aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning, particularly those who, to borrow a phrase from Pascal, are so made that they understand best through visuals. I have selected a small set of common errors in reasoning and visualized them using memorable illustrations that are supplemented with lots of examples. The hope is that the reader will learn from these pages some of the most common pitfalls in arguments and be able to identify and avoid them in practice.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賴 賱賱賲亘鬲丿卅賷賳 賮賷 丨賯賱 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷貙 亘丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻賲賷賴賲 亘丕爻賰丕賱 賷賮賴賲賵賳 亘卮賰賱 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱氐賵乇 (氐賵乇賷賵賳). 賱賯丿 丕禺鬲乇鬲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 氐睾賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵氐賵乇鬲賴丕 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 乇爻賵賲丕鬲 爻賴賱丞 賱賱鬲匕賰乇貙 賲乇賮賯丞 亘丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞貙 賵丕賱兀賲賱 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 爻賷鬲毓賱賲 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 亘毓囟丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賲夭丕賱賯 賮賷 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賮賷爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲賲賷賷夭賴丕 賵鬲噩賳亘賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賲乇賷賳.
This book is aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning, particularly those who, to borrow a phrase from Pascal, are so made that they understand best through visuals. I have selected a small set of common errors in reasoning and visualized them using memorable illustrations that are supplemented with lots of examples. The hope is that the reader will learn from these pages some of the most common pitfalls in arguments and be able to identify and avoid them in practice.
55 pages, ebook
First published December 5, 2013
949 people are currently reading
5,237 people want to read
About the author
Ali Almossawi
7听books155听followersAli Almossawi is the author of books on critical thinking. His books have reached 3.5 million readers, translated into 22 languages, and have sold over 370,000 copies in print. He lives in San Francisco with his wife and daughter.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 647 reviews
July 27, 2023
In a Nutshell: Helps you understand what comprises bad arguments. Not a bad book, but my expectations were different. Digital edition available for free.
When I taught critical reasoning, one entire section of the topic was devoted to logical fallacies. Simply put, these are the flaws that people make while arguing. For instance,
- 鈥淚 can鈥檛 understand how you hated this book. I loved it!鈥�
- 鈥淵ou are an adult so why are you reading children鈥檚 books?鈥�
- 鈥淵ou have no right to complain about the Jewish rep in the book if you aren鈥檛 Jewish鈥�
- 鈥淎udiobooks aren鈥檛 read, so you cannot count them as books鈥�
- 鈥淭his novel made me lose my respect for Indian society.鈥�
(Any of these sound familiar, fellow reviewers? 馃槈 FWIW, the last one was actually made in a review by an ex-GR friend; she became an ex-friend immediately after I read her 鈥渞eview鈥�.)
If you can see the flaws in the logic of these statements, you can certainly read this book to enhance your reasoning ability. If all the above arguments sound fair to you, I hope you aren鈥檛 in my friends list, but just in case you are, please read the book and rectify your thinking.
This book contains various logical fallacies and explains, with the proper nomenclature, the exact type of flaw, and how it results in a weak argument. One page side is devoted to the explanation, and the other side has an illustration of that particular fallacy. While I liked a few of the illustrations, I don鈥檛 think they were always effective in explaining the fallacy accurately.
As the title clearly suggests, this is a book of bad arguments. So all the knowledge herein is aimed at enhancing your understanding of bad arguments so that you can avoid their pitfalls and improve your rhetoric. After all, there are two ways of improving our skills: knowing what to do, and knowing what not to do.
I had assumed that this book would be perfect for someone like me who adores logic. I mean, I look for logic even in contemporary thrillers 鈥� such a wasteful enterprise! While I did enjoy taking a relook at the logical fallacies, I was a bit disappointed at the approach.
The biggest problem is that the explanation of the fallacies gets quite technical. To a newbie in logic, the reasoning provided might be confusing, for at least a few of the fallacies. The idea of its being an illustrated novel made me expect a more foundational approach, but that鈥檚 not to be. That said, there is a detailed glossary at the end 鈥� somewhat helpful but not enough.
The introductory note does say that the terseness of the explanations is deliberate, but maybe it ended up being too terse to be truly effective.
Another issue is that when we see that illustrated cover, we would somehow expect a light-hearted approach towards explaining this serious topic, maybe by using humour to make it easier and relatable. But the hilarity level of the book is almost zero. Even the funniest of illustrations elicited hardly any smile from me, forget about an actual chuckle.
Then again, this book is available for free on the authors鈥� website, so there's no harm in checking it out. If it works for you, great! If it does not, you haven鈥檛 lost a penny. Who knows! You might be able to deal with online trolls better armed with the skillset gained from this book. 馃槃
Note: Though this is an illustrated novel, this is definitely not for children as the arguments are too abstruse for their young minds.
2.5 stars.
Check it out here:
There鈥檚 a choice of seventeen translations to choose from, so pick the language you are most comfortable in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Connect with me through:
| | | |
When I taught critical reasoning, one entire section of the topic was devoted to logical fallacies. Simply put, these are the flaws that people make while arguing. For instance,
- 鈥淚 can鈥檛 understand how you hated this book. I loved it!鈥�
- 鈥淵ou are an adult so why are you reading children鈥檚 books?鈥�
- 鈥淵ou have no right to complain about the Jewish rep in the book if you aren鈥檛 Jewish鈥�
- 鈥淎udiobooks aren鈥檛 read, so you cannot count them as books鈥�
- 鈥淭his novel made me lose my respect for Indian society.鈥�
(Any of these sound familiar, fellow reviewers? 馃槈 FWIW, the last one was actually made in a review by an ex-GR friend; she became an ex-friend immediately after I read her 鈥渞eview鈥�.)
If you can see the flaws in the logic of these statements, you can certainly read this book to enhance your reasoning ability. If all the above arguments sound fair to you, I hope you aren鈥檛 in my friends list, but just in case you are, please read the book and rectify your thinking.
This book contains various logical fallacies and explains, with the proper nomenclature, the exact type of flaw, and how it results in a weak argument. One page side is devoted to the explanation, and the other side has an illustration of that particular fallacy. While I liked a few of the illustrations, I don鈥檛 think they were always effective in explaining the fallacy accurately.
As the title clearly suggests, this is a book of bad arguments. So all the knowledge herein is aimed at enhancing your understanding of bad arguments so that you can avoid their pitfalls and improve your rhetoric. After all, there are two ways of improving our skills: knowing what to do, and knowing what not to do.
I had assumed that this book would be perfect for someone like me who adores logic. I mean, I look for logic even in contemporary thrillers 鈥� such a wasteful enterprise! While I did enjoy taking a relook at the logical fallacies, I was a bit disappointed at the approach.
The biggest problem is that the explanation of the fallacies gets quite technical. To a newbie in logic, the reasoning provided might be confusing, for at least a few of the fallacies. The idea of its being an illustrated novel made me expect a more foundational approach, but that鈥檚 not to be. That said, there is a detailed glossary at the end 鈥� somewhat helpful but not enough.
The introductory note does say that the terseness of the explanations is deliberate, but maybe it ended up being too terse to be truly effective.
Another issue is that when we see that illustrated cover, we would somehow expect a light-hearted approach towards explaining this serious topic, maybe by using humour to make it easier and relatable. But the hilarity level of the book is almost zero. Even the funniest of illustrations elicited hardly any smile from me, forget about an actual chuckle.
Then again, this book is available for free on the authors鈥� website, so there's no harm in checking it out. If it works for you, great! If it does not, you haven鈥檛 lost a penny. Who knows! You might be able to deal with online trolls better armed with the skillset gained from this book. 馃槃
Note: Though this is an illustrated novel, this is definitely not for children as the arguments are too abstruse for their young minds.
2.5 stars.
Check it out here:
There鈥檚 a choice of seventeen translations to choose from, so pick the language you are most comfortable in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Connect with me through:
| | | |
August 13, 2016
One of the worst books about argumentation I鈥檝e ever read. But, apparently, I鈥檓 the only one to think so, since many people say this book should be on every school curriculum. Let me explain why this would be a disaster.
First, although this book can be downloaded freely () and is nicely illustrated, it would be a terrible way to introduce children to the study of reasoning. The main reason for this is that the subject is introduced with a section titled 鈥楧efinitions鈥�, which is way too uninviting, dense and technical for children. Why could Almossawi not explain some important principles of reasoning in ordinary English and leave these definitions for an appendix? Furthermore, many of the examples of the fallacies that are treated hardly appeal to the world of children. The illustrations are of little aid here either. They are not helpful to those who 鈥榰nderstand better through visuals鈥�, since the visuals don鈥檛 do much explaining; it is the texts that are written under them that give just another example of the fallacy. Also, many of those textual examples feel made-up rather than taken from the real world, which contributes to the impression that the study of (informal) logic has no non-fictitious applications. Finally, a proper educational book on fallacies would include exercises in spotting and repairing arguments. This book does not.
Second, the book is neither suited as an introduction to the field for any adolescent or adult either. Even for them the 鈥楧efinitions鈥� section will be too abstract to grasp right away. Moreover, many of the notions introduced there are not reinforced later in the book, or even mentioned. This adds to the feeling that this book is nothing more than a mishmash of information that you can find just as easily on Wikipedia. Most importantly, I always found that the true joy of reasoning is quickly extinguished if you make it look like a minefield of fallacies. Reasoning is, in the first place, not about prohibitions but about possibilities. Thinking creatively about how you can make some proposition plausible and falsify another. This requires thinking about persuasion, verification, falsification, confirmation, argumentation schemes, proof strategies, induction, deduction, abduction, etc. And practice, of course. There is none of that in this book. If you are an adult and interested in informal logic: please read some book by Douglas Walton, Frans van Eemeren or Alec Fisher. If you are a kid and interested in informal logic: unfortunately, I do not know of any book suited for you. This book certainly isn鈥檛.
To finish things up, a short appendix with a list of some of the mistakes and infelicities I noticed while reading. (I have little doubt that I would notice more if I would read the book again.) I hear this book will appear in print as well. Maybe these comments can be of use to the editors.
- Chapter 1: 鈥榲alidity of propositions鈥� is a category mistake; there is no attempt to distinguish the invalid argument from consequences from the valid reductio ad absurdum.
- Chapter 2: the anti-evolution example is very uncharitable: the common ancestry of primates and humans can be considered irrelevant if our common ancestors were sufficiently monkey-like and did swing from trees.
- Chapter 3: there is no attempt to distinguish authority from testimony; arguments from authority are strictly speaking always fallacious, but this is not made clear; in fact, the distinction between deductive validity and inductive strength is never taken seriously outside of the 鈥楧efinitions鈥� section.
- Chapter 4: the example shows it is precisely the question whether 鈥榝aith鈥� is used ambiguously here or not, so discarding the argument from the start seems too hasty.
- Chapter 5: notions of bivalence and vagueness are not dealt with; the picture example is misleading.
- Chapter 6: the simple fact that correlation or temporal precedence do increase the chance of two random events to be causally related is ignored; moreover, often they are our best tools to make causal judgements.
- Chapter 7: the examples are bad; the appeal to fear might reduce as a subtype of the argument from consequences.
- Chapter 8: the notion of representativeness carries all the weight but is not elaborated upon.
- Chapter 9: Sagan鈥檚 example makes a caricature of even the stupidest ufologist; the complicated notion of the burden of proof is only glanced over.
- Chapter 10: this fallacy reduces to circular reasoning.
- Chapter 11: the genesis of beliefs and arguments can, in many ways, be relevant to their assessment.
- Chapter 12: this type of reasoning may also reduce to other fallacies; it can sometimes be a useful form of, in the words of Arne Naess (if I recall correctly), 鈥榮ymptomatic argumentation鈥�.
- Chapter 13: the picture is misleading; the truth of the consequent may still increase the probability of the antecedent.
- Chapter 14: inconsistent behaviours and standards can often be rightly criticised.
- Chapter 15: a slippery slope is often a useful inductive reasoning tool, even though it is not deductively valid.
- Chapter 16: this whole chapter is confused.
- Chapter 17: the example contradicts the picture in the appeal to authority chapter; the circumstantial ad hominem may reduce to the genetic fallacy.
- Chapter 18: the TV-show example is not charitably interpreted.
- Chapter 19: I find it hard to see the relevance of the picture to the text; the text examples are so far from any real-world reasoning that you are glad that the book is over.
First, although this book can be downloaded freely () and is nicely illustrated, it would be a terrible way to introduce children to the study of reasoning. The main reason for this is that the subject is introduced with a section titled 鈥楧efinitions鈥�, which is way too uninviting, dense and technical for children. Why could Almossawi not explain some important principles of reasoning in ordinary English and leave these definitions for an appendix? Furthermore, many of the examples of the fallacies that are treated hardly appeal to the world of children. The illustrations are of little aid here either. They are not helpful to those who 鈥榰nderstand better through visuals鈥�, since the visuals don鈥檛 do much explaining; it is the texts that are written under them that give just another example of the fallacy. Also, many of those textual examples feel made-up rather than taken from the real world, which contributes to the impression that the study of (informal) logic has no non-fictitious applications. Finally, a proper educational book on fallacies would include exercises in spotting and repairing arguments. This book does not.
Second, the book is neither suited as an introduction to the field for any adolescent or adult either. Even for them the 鈥楧efinitions鈥� section will be too abstract to grasp right away. Moreover, many of the notions introduced there are not reinforced later in the book, or even mentioned. This adds to the feeling that this book is nothing more than a mishmash of information that you can find just as easily on Wikipedia. Most importantly, I always found that the true joy of reasoning is quickly extinguished if you make it look like a minefield of fallacies. Reasoning is, in the first place, not about prohibitions but about possibilities. Thinking creatively about how you can make some proposition plausible and falsify another. This requires thinking about persuasion, verification, falsification, confirmation, argumentation schemes, proof strategies, induction, deduction, abduction, etc. And practice, of course. There is none of that in this book. If you are an adult and interested in informal logic: please read some book by Douglas Walton, Frans van Eemeren or Alec Fisher. If you are a kid and interested in informal logic: unfortunately, I do not know of any book suited for you. This book certainly isn鈥檛.
To finish things up, a short appendix with a list of some of the mistakes and infelicities I noticed while reading. (I have little doubt that I would notice more if I would read the book again.) I hear this book will appear in print as well. Maybe these comments can be of use to the editors.
- Chapter 1: 鈥榲alidity of propositions鈥� is a category mistake; there is no attempt to distinguish the invalid argument from consequences from the valid reductio ad absurdum.
- Chapter 2: the anti-evolution example is very uncharitable: the common ancestry of primates and humans can be considered irrelevant if our common ancestors were sufficiently monkey-like and did swing from trees.
- Chapter 3: there is no attempt to distinguish authority from testimony; arguments from authority are strictly speaking always fallacious, but this is not made clear; in fact, the distinction between deductive validity and inductive strength is never taken seriously outside of the 鈥楧efinitions鈥� section.
- Chapter 4: the example shows it is precisely the question whether 鈥榝aith鈥� is used ambiguously here or not, so discarding the argument from the start seems too hasty.
- Chapter 5: notions of bivalence and vagueness are not dealt with; the picture example is misleading.
- Chapter 6: the simple fact that correlation or temporal precedence do increase the chance of two random events to be causally related is ignored; moreover, often they are our best tools to make causal judgements.
- Chapter 7: the examples are bad; the appeal to fear might reduce as a subtype of the argument from consequences.
- Chapter 8: the notion of representativeness carries all the weight but is not elaborated upon.
- Chapter 9: Sagan鈥檚 example makes a caricature of even the stupidest ufologist; the complicated notion of the burden of proof is only glanced over.
- Chapter 10: this fallacy reduces to circular reasoning.
- Chapter 11: the genesis of beliefs and arguments can, in many ways, be relevant to their assessment.
- Chapter 12: this type of reasoning may also reduce to other fallacies; it can sometimes be a useful form of, in the words of Arne Naess (if I recall correctly), 鈥榮ymptomatic argumentation鈥�.
- Chapter 13: the picture is misleading; the truth of the consequent may still increase the probability of the antecedent.
- Chapter 14: inconsistent behaviours and standards can often be rightly criticised.
- Chapter 15: a slippery slope is often a useful inductive reasoning tool, even though it is not deductively valid.
- Chapter 16: this whole chapter is confused.
- Chapter 17: the example contradicts the picture in the appeal to authority chapter; the circumstantial ad hominem may reduce to the genetic fallacy.
- Chapter 18: the TV-show example is not charitably interpreted.
- Chapter 19: I find it hard to see the relevance of the picture to the text; the text examples are so far from any real-world reasoning that you are glad that the book is over.
June 15, 2016
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard P Feynman
I bought this book shortly after I bought Randall Munroe's and and at the same time I purchased Joyce's . So, I guess I was going through a nerd graphic need for pictures with my words.
I've always liked logic, books on logical fallacies, debate, and rhetoric. I figured this might be an interesting book to get for my kids. What isn't to like? Logic presented by anthropomorphized squirrels and badgers? Sign me up. The problem is, however, the book was aiming for a couple different audiences and missed them all.
Is this a primer on logic? I'm not sure if the way it is laid out and introduced will prime my kids to either be: a) interested in logic or b) better at logic. The book itself suggests this is their primary audience on page 1 under the title: Who is this book for? "This book is aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning, particularly those who, to borrow a phrase from Pascal, are so made that they understand best through visuals."
Is this aimed (unofficially) at those who love logic and are searching for a coffee table book or nontraditional text? Well, I can't speak for the whole universe of logic lovers, but in my case I found BOTH the words and drawings a bit too messy and almost incoherent. Ugh. The author claims in the Preface that he wanted to create, unlike Lewis Carroll and George Orwell, a "narrative that ties the illustrations together". There just seemed to be a larger void between the wish and the execution with this book. I applaud the attempt, but perhaps, the idea required a bit more thought. I don't think the author was misinformed about logic or illustration's ability to aid in education, but it just seemed to me that, either because of brevity or arrangement the idea didn't work.
Is this aimed at those who love picture books? Perhaps, but again, as I pointed out above BOTH the pictures and the text were a bit of a disappointment.
Probably the only piece of this whole thing I enjoyed without reserve was the drawing of the logical family tree which showed how logical fallacies broke down into formal and informal fallacies, etc. But this part should have provided hints that some internal book logic was missing. This graphic appeared near the beginning of the book, but the arrangement of chapters for the 19 examples of bad arguments didn't fit the graphic and the table of contents was several pages earlier. Talk about missing an easy hit.
Finally, it was a bit irritating to have the author describe the book's illustrations as "memorable" and "lively". I get that the author is, perhaps, tipping his hat to his illustrator (Alejandro Giraldo), but still, I'll be the judge of how lively and memorable the illustrations are OR book is thank you very much.
Looking back on casual purchase of introductory books about logic, I guess I just prefer jokes with my logic instead of visuals with my logic (see: ).
Now that I think of it, this book seems to be more interesting as an example of modern book marketing (slick website, an affinity for number of web visitors, donations, metrics, etc). Anyway, don't take my word for it. You don't even need to buy it (or hell, go ahead and buy it I don't care), just go to the book's .
Oh, and here is the real rub. I was irritated enough with the whole book I actually went through the process of returning it to Amazon. They asked why, I gave them a quick answer. They refunded my money and said, "PLEASE DON'T SEND IT BACK". I know they were just being logical in an economic sense. The $10 I paid for it after prime shipping it to me, made it basically more economical to just give me my money back rather than shipping it out again. Again, that was logical, but part of me just FELT like even they didn't want it.
-- Richard P Feynman
I bought this book shortly after I bought Randall Munroe's and and at the same time I purchased Joyce's . So, I guess I was going through a nerd graphic need for pictures with my words.
I've always liked logic, books on logical fallacies, debate, and rhetoric. I figured this might be an interesting book to get for my kids. What isn't to like? Logic presented by anthropomorphized squirrels and badgers? Sign me up. The problem is, however, the book was aiming for a couple different audiences and missed them all.
Is this a primer on logic? I'm not sure if the way it is laid out and introduced will prime my kids to either be: a) interested in logic or b) better at logic. The book itself suggests this is their primary audience on page 1 under the title: Who is this book for? "This book is aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning, particularly those who, to borrow a phrase from Pascal, are so made that they understand best through visuals."
Is this aimed (unofficially) at those who love logic and are searching for a coffee table book or nontraditional text? Well, I can't speak for the whole universe of logic lovers, but in my case I found BOTH the words and drawings a bit too messy and almost incoherent. Ugh. The author claims in the Preface that he wanted to create, unlike Lewis Carroll and George Orwell, a "narrative that ties the illustrations together". There just seemed to be a larger void between the wish and the execution with this book. I applaud the attempt, but perhaps, the idea required a bit more thought. I don't think the author was misinformed about logic or illustration's ability to aid in education, but it just seemed to me that, either because of brevity or arrangement the idea didn't work.
Is this aimed at those who love picture books? Perhaps, but again, as I pointed out above BOTH the pictures and the text were a bit of a disappointment.
Probably the only piece of this whole thing I enjoyed without reserve was the drawing of the logical family tree which showed how logical fallacies broke down into formal and informal fallacies, etc. But this part should have provided hints that some internal book logic was missing. This graphic appeared near the beginning of the book, but the arrangement of chapters for the 19 examples of bad arguments didn't fit the graphic and the table of contents was several pages earlier. Talk about missing an easy hit.
Finally, it was a bit irritating to have the author describe the book's illustrations as "memorable" and "lively". I get that the author is, perhaps, tipping his hat to his illustrator (Alejandro Giraldo), but still, I'll be the judge of how lively and memorable the illustrations are OR book is thank you very much.
Looking back on casual purchase of introductory books about logic, I guess I just prefer jokes with my logic instead of visuals with my logic (see: ).
Now that I think of it, this book seems to be more interesting as an example of modern book marketing (slick website, an affinity for number of web visitors, donations, metrics, etc). Anyway, don't take my word for it. You don't even need to buy it (or hell, go ahead and buy it I don't care), just go to the book's .
Oh, and here is the real rub. I was irritated enough with the whole book I actually went through the process of returning it to Amazon. They asked why, I gave them a quick answer. They refunded my money and said, "PLEASE DON'T SEND IT BACK". I know they were just being logical in an economic sense. The $10 I paid for it after prime shipping it to me, made it basically more economical to just give me my money back rather than shipping it out again. Again, that was logical, but part of me just FELT like even they didn't want it.
December 23, 2015
This book is not at all what I expected. When I saw it online, I thought it would be a cute and quirky little book illustrating logical failures, kind of like Cracked.com did with its article on internet argument techniques. But this was not really that.
Yes, it's a little book and it's illustrated, but it's not really as successful as it tries to be. It's both too complex and too short, so it makes a lot of logical leaps, I think. It attempts to briefly explain concepts that require a good bit of explanation, and it just feels rushed to conclusions about the particular argument being explained.
That being said, it isn't a bad book, but I think it would have benefited from a little more breathing room door each argument type. The text is dense, and the drawings, while cute, don't always explain the concept.
Still, I like that it offers a quick reference for me to have in hand for the next presidential debate. Maybe I'll make spotting the bad arguments a drinking game.
Or not. I like my liver.
Yes, it's a little book and it's illustrated, but it's not really as successful as it tries to be. It's both too complex and too short, so it makes a lot of logical leaps, I think. It attempts to briefly explain concepts that require a good bit of explanation, and it just feels rushed to conclusions about the particular argument being explained.
That being said, it isn't a bad book, but I think it would have benefited from a little more breathing room door each argument type. The text is dense, and the drawings, while cute, don't always explain the concept.
Still, I like that it offers a quick reference for me to have in hand for the next presidential debate. Maybe I'll make spotting the bad arguments a drinking game.
Or not. I like my liver.
February 27, 2017
The book is aimed at the public who have no or little knowledge in logical fallacies/cognitive biases. The language used is very simple (suitable for non-native English speakers, but anyway the book is translated into 17 languages just in case).
I actually liked the simplicity as these type of subjects (logic/logical fallacies/cognitive biases) are usually found written in complicated language. Even the examples used are very simple and most are common to everyday life.
The big plus in Almossawi's book is that every "logical fallacy" is accompanied with a wonderful illustration. These nice illustrations, in addition to the book's size and design, makes the book a great choice for gifting non-readers.
I actually liked the simplicity as these type of subjects (logic/logical fallacies/cognitive biases) are usually found written in complicated language. Even the examples used are very simple and most are common to everyday life.
The big plus in Almossawi's book is that every "logical fallacy" is accompanied with a wonderful illustration. These nice illustrations, in addition to the book's size and design, makes the book a great choice for gifting non-readers.
May 2, 2015
an entertaining and basic guide to types of bad arguments. In my opinion, a must read for the avid Facebook "expert". This is by no mean an academic study on the subject but really just a basic primer.
March 15, 2015
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 禺賮賷賮 賵馗乇賷賮 賰賲賯丿賲丞 亘爻賷胤丞 毓賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞
賵丕賱乇爻賵賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲囟賲賳賴丕 噩賲賷賱丞 乇睾賲 毓丿賲 丕賳丿賲丕噩賴丕 賲毓 丕賱賳氐
丕毓鬲賲丿 亘丕賱乇爻賵賲丕鬲 毓賱賶 乇賵丕賷丕鬲 噩賵乇噩 丕賵乇賵賷賱 賵賱賵賷爻 賰丕乇賵賱
丕賯鬲亘爻
"賵賱賰賳賳丕 丕賱丌賳貙 賵賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓氐乇貙 賱賲丕 鬲亘丕毓丿 賯丕賲賵爻 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲鬲丿丕賵賱 毓賳 賯丕賲賵爻 賱睾丞 丕賱兀毓氐丕乇 丕賱賲丕囟賷丞貙 賰賲丕 賴賷 爻購賳購賾丞購 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 噩賲賷毓丕賸貙 賷兀禺匕 賮賻賳賻賾丕 丕賱禺胤丕亘丞 賵丕賱噩丿賱 兀卮賰丕賱丕賸 賲睾丕賷乇丞 鬲鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 丕賱禺胤丕亘 丕賱廿毓賱丕賲賷 賵丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮賷 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賱賲 賷毓鬲賳賶 亘賴賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 毓賱丕賵丞賸 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 氐丕乇鬲 鬲購丿乇爻 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 兀賵 丕賱丨賯賱 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷 丕賱賮賯賴賷 毓賱賶 賵噩賴 丕賱禺氐賵氐貙 鬲夭丿丕丿 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賱賱廿賴鬲賲丕賲 亘賴匕賷賳 丕賱賮氐賱賷賳 賱賲賲丕乇爻鬲賳丕 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷丞 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞貙 賵賴匕丕 兀賲乇賹 亘丕賱睾 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 丕賱丨賵丕乇賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷 賵丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丕賱賳丕賮賯 亘丕賱廿賯氐丕亍 賵丕賱睾丕乇賯 賮賷 丕賱丿賲丕亍.
丕賱賲賮乇丿丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賯丕卅賲 亘丕賱丨噩丞 廿賳賲丕 鬲氐丨 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 匕丕鬲 賲毓賳賶 賵丕丨丿 賮賷 丕賱廿丨鬲噩丕噩.
賮賮賷 丕賱賲孬丕賱 丕賱丌鬲賷: 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賳 囟丿 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賮賷 丨賷賳 兀賳賰 鬲丐賲賳 亘兀卮賷丕亍 賰孬賷乇丞 賰丕賱氐丿丕賯丕鬲 賵丕賱夭賷噩丕鬲 賵丕賱廿爻鬲孬賲丕乇丕鬲. 賰賱賲丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賴賳丕 鬲睾賷乇 賲毓賳丕賴丕 賲賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賺 丿賷賳賷 亘丕賱禺丕賱賯 廿賱賶 賲丕 賷賮賴賲 亘賴 兀賳賴 孬賯丞賹 亘賲禺丕胤乇 賲丨鬲賲賱丞."
January 25, 2018
丕賵賱 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賰鬲乇賵賳賷 丕賵 丕賷馗丕 丕賵賱 賰鬲丕亘 丕賯乇丕亍賴 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 賰賵賲亘賷賵鬲乇, 賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤 賵噩賲賷賱 賵賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳爻賶 賵丕賯賵賱 賮賰乇丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賵亘氐乇丕丨丞 丕毓噩亘賳賷 賵丕鬲賲賳賶 丕賳 賷賴鬲賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賴賰匕丕 賰鬲亘 賵禺丕氐丞 鬲賰賵賳 亘爻賷胤丞 賵賲賮賴賵賲丞 賵賯賱賷賱丞 賵鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賮賷 賵賯鬲 賮乇丕睾 賯氐賷乇.
丨爻亘 乇丕賷 丕賵 丨爻亘 賲丕 鬲毓賱賲鬲 賵賮賴賲鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賷 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳丨賰賲 毓賱賶 卮禺氐 丕賵 丨丿孬 丕賵 賲賵囟賵毓 賮賯胤 賱丕賳 賯丕亘賱賳丕 卮禺氐 賵丕丨丿 丕賵 丨氐賱 賱賳丕 卮賷亍 賵丕丨丿, 賵丕賷馗丕 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳毓賲賲 亘卮賰賱 爻賷亍 毓賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賵 丕丨丿丕孬 賮賯胤 賱丕賳 賵丕噩賴賳丕 卮禺氐 爻賷亍 丕賵 丨氐賱 賱賳丕 賲賵賯賮 睾賷乇 噩賷丿 賵丕孬乇鬲 亘胤亘毓 亘卮賰賱 爻賷亍 毓賱賶 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 賱賴匕賴 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賵 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賵丕賱乇丕卅毓 賮賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 賲賳 丕氐賱 卮乇賯 丕賵爻胤賷 賵賱賰賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 鬲賰賵賳 睾乇亘賷丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賲丕 賴賵 卮乇賯賷丞 賵噩賲毓 亘賷賳 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳 賱丕禺乇丕噩 賴賰匕丕 賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤.
丨爻亘 乇丕賷 丕賵 丨爻亘 賲丕 鬲毓賱賲鬲 賵賮賴賲鬲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賷 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳丨賰賲 毓賱賶 卮禺氐 丕賵 丨丿孬 丕賵 賲賵囟賵毓 賮賯胤 賱丕賳 賯丕亘賱賳丕 卮禺氐 賵丕丨丿 丕賵 丨氐賱 賱賳丕 卮賷亍 賵丕丨丿, 賵丕賷馗丕 賱丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳毓賲賲 亘卮賰賱 爻賷亍 毓賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賵 丕丨丿丕孬 賮賯胤 賱丕賳 賵丕噩賴賳丕 卮禺氐 爻賷亍 丕賵 丨氐賱 賱賳丕 賲賵賯賮 睾賷乇 噩賷丿 賵丕孬乇鬲 亘胤亘毓 亘卮賰賱 爻賷亍 毓賱賶 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 賱賴匕賴 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賵 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賵丕賱乇丕卅毓 賮賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 賲賳 丕氐賱 卮乇賯 丕賵爻胤賷 賵賱賰賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 鬲賰賵賳 睾乇亘賷丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賲丕 賴賵 卮乇賯賷丞 賵噩賲毓 亘賷賳 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳 賱丕禺乇丕噩 賴賰匕丕 賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤.
November 21, 2022
It was o.k., but nothing too special. The cartoon animal drawings used to illustrate the error in making each argument were extremely clever, and the very best part of the book. The dry text accompanying each drawing, though, was quite droll and after reading a few I focused solely on the illustrations, which I felt were extremely clear in doing what they were meant to do.
3 stars
3 stars
September 9, 2013
This was awesome! Please go to and read it, and spread it.
July 22, 2024
Critical thinking proves an indispensable tool.
December 10, 2015
I wish everyone would read this before the upcoming election. Because my god, this thing reads like a preventative guide for most, and a tactics manual for political debates.
Here's my impression of presidential debates:
Moderator: Candidate Buttface, tell us about your opinion on immigration.
Candidate Buttface: I'll tell you all you need to know, which is that my opponent, Candidate Fartface, has the same opinion on immigration as our current president, President ButtButt. And look at the state of family values!
Moderator: Candidate Fartface, your response.
Candidate Fartface: Abortion am bad! Guns! I have a feeling about those that agrees with a tiny minority who, unfortunately, vote in numbers! Death panels! How do they work? Right to life! Gays are getting married and what are the effects on pizza parlors who hate gay people! Small business! I worked on a farm one summer!
Moderator: Stirring words indeed.
[cut back to Fox News studios]
And now we have this fuckface who pops the collar on his stupid polo shirts and interviews women with their boobs out.
Fuckface: Thanks, Bill! You, you have your boobs out and are celebrating Mardi Gras. Can I ask you a question about Obamacare and then wink at the camera like, 'See this drunk idiot? With her boobs out?'
Boobs Out Lady: Um, [says something frustratingly stupid that makes me mad every time because it's like, can't ONE drunken party person tell this guy he's an asshole]
Fuckface: [winks at camera] Back to you, Bill.
Bill: Back to the debate.
Moderator: Thank you candidates, for listening to me ask a question, hearing the Charlie Brown teacher voice, and then basically talking about whatever the fuck you felt like talking about. What a rich and wonderful tapestry we have.
*distant sound of gunfire as I end my own life*
FIN
Here's my impression of presidential debates:
Moderator: Candidate Buttface, tell us about your opinion on immigration.
Candidate Buttface: I'll tell you all you need to know, which is that my opponent, Candidate Fartface, has the same opinion on immigration as our current president, President ButtButt. And look at the state of family values!
Moderator: Candidate Fartface, your response.
Candidate Fartface: Abortion am bad! Guns! I have a feeling about those that agrees with a tiny minority who, unfortunately, vote in numbers! Death panels! How do they work? Right to life! Gays are getting married and what are the effects on pizza parlors who hate gay people! Small business! I worked on a farm one summer!
Moderator: Stirring words indeed.
[cut back to Fox News studios]
And now we have this fuckface who pops the collar on his stupid polo shirts and interviews women with their boobs out.
Fuckface: Thanks, Bill! You, you have your boobs out and are celebrating Mardi Gras. Can I ask you a question about Obamacare and then wink at the camera like, 'See this drunk idiot? With her boobs out?'
Boobs Out Lady: Um, [says something frustratingly stupid that makes me mad every time because it's like, can't ONE drunken party person tell this guy he's an asshole]
Fuckface: [winks at camera] Back to you, Bill.
Bill: Back to the debate.
Moderator: Thank you candidates, for listening to me ask a question, hearing the Charlie Brown teacher voice, and then basically talking about whatever the fuck you felt like talking about. What a rich and wonderful tapestry we have.
*distant sound of gunfire as I end my own life*
FIN
July 14, 2015
賲亘丿卅賷丕 兀毓噩亘鬲賳賷 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賲賱丞 賲賳 賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 :
賵 賴賵 賲丕 丕賵囟丨鬲賴 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 貙 賵 兀賰丿鬲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱 ..
***
賵 丕賷囟丕 賴匕賴 貙 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賵噩丿鬲賴丕 (鬲賱禺氐) 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 .. 貙 亘賱 賵 賱爻亘亘賷鬲賴丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻 ! :
***
丕禺賷乇丕 賮丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕賵乇丿賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 貙 賵 兀亘賷丕鬲 丕賱卮毓乇 貙 賵 丕賱賲丕丿丞 丕賱賲氐賵乇丞 賰丕賳賵丕 賮賷 兀丨賷丕賳 賰孬賷乇丞 睾賷乇 賲賳丕爻亘賷賳 丕胤賱丕賯丕 貙 賱卮乇丨 丕賵 鬲賵囟賷丨 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丞 丕賱賱賷 亘賷毓乇囟賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘
丕賱乇丕亘胤 丕賱匕賷 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 :
廿賳 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賱賷爻鬲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 貙 賰賲丕 兀賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲卮賰賱 賰賱 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷 貙 賰賲丕 賷丐賰丿 (賲丕乇賮賳 賲賷賳爻賰賷) 貙 丕賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞 丕賱毓丕丿賷丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵 丕賱丨爻 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賷氐毓亘 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 賵 賰匕賱賰 丕賱賯賷丕爻 ...
賵 賴賵 賲丕 丕賵囟丨鬲賴 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 貙 賵 兀賰丿鬲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱 ..
***
賵 丕賷囟丕 賴匕賴 貙 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賵噩丿鬲賴丕 (鬲賱禺氐) 賱兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 亘丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 .. 貙 亘賱 賵 賱爻亘亘賷鬲賴丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻 ! :
... 賮丕賱賲賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱丨噩噩 鬲賵賮乇 賲賯賷丕爻丕 賱鬲毓乇賮 賲鬲賶 鬲賳爻丨亘 賲賳 丕賱賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇噩丨 毓賯賷賲丞
***
丕禺賷乇丕 賮丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕賵乇丿賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 貙 賵 兀亘賷丕鬲 丕賱卮毓乇 貙 賵 丕賱賲丕丿丞 丕賱賲氐賵乇丞 賰丕賳賵丕 賮賷 兀丨賷丕賳 賰孬賷乇丞 睾賷乇 賲賳丕爻亘賷賳 丕胤賱丕賯丕 貙 賱卮乇丨 丕賵 鬲賵囟賷丨 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丞 丕賱賱賷 亘賷毓乇囟賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘
丕賱乇丕亘胤 丕賱匕賷 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 :
March 20, 2017
The book discussed different types of argument fallacies, arguments that we encounter every other day but yet we are unaware of it.
Although insightful, I didn`t really get how can I benefit from solely knowing about the types of arguments.
Nonetheless, the illustrations were nice , some of them were hard to relate to the text but in general it was a light book that requires a second reading I guess.
Although insightful, I didn`t really get how can I benefit from solely knowing about the types of arguments.
Nonetheless, the illustrations were nice , some of them were hard to relate to the text but in general it was a light book that requires a second reading I guess.
June 28, 2020
SPOILER FREE
Voc锚 est谩 cansado de ler coisas bizarras na internet? Argumentos que n茫o fazem sentido? Ideias sem p茅 nem cabe莽a? O que voc锚 precisa ler e fazer os doidos por a铆 lerem 茅 esse livro: O livro ilustrado dos maus argumentos.
Cheio de desenhos fofos e explica莽玫es bem simples e b谩sicas de fal谩cias argumentativas, o livro do Ali Almossawi 茅 uma leitura necess谩ria em tempos de fake news e bolsonarismo. E o melhor? Se voc锚 n茫o tem dinheiro por motivos de pandemia e quarentena para comprar a vers茫o oficial, ele pode ser lido gratuitamente online, em mais de 10 idiomas nesse site. E n茫o 茅 pirata.
Aviso logo que n茫o 茅 uma leitura compreensiva sobre l贸gica. 脡 uma leitura introdut贸ria e bastante b谩sica. Mas, considerando o atual estado das coisas e a falta de paci锚ncia e talvez at茅 de capacidade para leituras mais complexas, digamos que o livro tem o tamanho certo.
Fica a dica!
March 20, 2017
The book talks about the ways for argument in a particular discussion, and how people react to different opinions by different techniques.
As I understood, that it is the output of years of ongoing learning and personal experience. The writer listed many techniques and supported by examples and quotes from different placed (Books, TV, media ..etc).
Many of these techniques are being implemented unconsciously by human, the writer merely listed and named them accordingly. Personally, I loved the introduction for the meanings of the terms at the beginning of the book, and how they were linked to scientific terms and concepts.
The illustrations were amazing and confusing in the same time for certain examples. I believe they added a value to the book and enriched it with a humorous side.
I suggest the book to be read for a second time, if the reader would like to apply and use these techniques in his reality.
As I understood, that it is the output of years of ongoing learning and personal experience. The writer listed many techniques and supported by examples and quotes from different placed (Books, TV, media ..etc).
Many of these techniques are being implemented unconsciously by human, the writer merely listed and named them accordingly. Personally, I loved the introduction for the meanings of the terms at the beginning of the book, and how they were linked to scientific terms and concepts.
The illustrations were amazing and confusing in the same time for certain examples. I believe they added a value to the book and enriched it with a humorous side.
I suggest the book to be read for a second time, if the reader would like to apply and use these techniques in his reality.
February 9, 2021
毓賱賶 賯丕卅賲丞 賰鬲亘 爻兀噩毓賱 兀胤賮丕賱賷 賷賯乇兀賵賳賴丕 :)
March 16, 2018
This gives a nice overview of all kinds of bad arguments, but only scratches the surface.
I found this still to be helpful, though.
Lots of these invalid arguments are used constantly and everywhere. There wasn't anything I was surprised by here but it's good to concentrate on basic topics from time to time, I believe. I don't want to make bad arguments myself and I want to be able to find them in other people's reasoning easily.
The illustrations are nice, the examples could be more relatable, so I made some myself...
I found this still to be helpful, though.
Lots of these invalid arguments are used constantly and everywhere. There wasn't anything I was surprised by here but it's good to concentrate on basic topics from time to time, I believe. I don't want to make bad arguments myself and I want to be able to find them in other people's reasoning easily.
The illustrations are nice, the examples could be more relatable, so I made some myself...
September 11, 2021
銆� _ 賵丕爻賴 趩蹖 賴賲蹖卮賴 氐亘丨賵賳賴鈥屰� 賲賳 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌臂屫�
_ 賲蹖鈥屫堌й� 賴賲賴鈥屰� 毓丕丿鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘丿鬲 乇賵 亘乇丕鬲 亘卮賲乇賲責銆�
賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池屫� 丕蹖賳 賲讴丕賱賲賴 蹖賴 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫池� 蹖賴 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屰� 亘夭乇诏: 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屰� "禺賵丿鬲 趩蹖".
"丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘丿" 卮丕賲賱 賳賵夭丿賴 禺胤丕蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 乇丕蹖噩 賲孬賱 丕蹖賳賴. 丕蹖賳鈥屫堌臂� 讴賴 蹖賴 氐賮丨賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丕賵賳 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫池� 賵 氐賮丨賴鈥屰� 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟堐屰� 丕賵賳 蹖賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賵 蹖賴 賲孬丕賱 亘乇丕蹖 賵丕囟丨鈥屫� 讴乇丿賳 賲鬲賳.
"丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘丿" 乇賵 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿貙 丌乇賵賲鈥屫⒇辟堎� 禺賵賳丿貙 賴乇 亘禺卮卮 (賴乇 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫�) 乇賵 趩賳丿亘丕乇 禺賵賳丿. 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿卮 賵 丕夭卮 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴乇丿 鬲丕 賴賲賵賳鈥屫焚堌� 讴賴 乇賵蹖 噩賱丿 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴貙 丨乇賮 丨爻丕亘 夭丿.
倬.賳: 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 賲禺丕胤亘 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵噩賵丕賳賴貙 讴丕卮 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴賲蹖 乇賵賵賳鈥屫� 賵 爻丕丿賴鈥屫� 賲蹖鈥屫ㄙ堌�.
_ 賲蹖鈥屫堌й� 賴賲賴鈥屰� 毓丕丿鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘丿鬲 乇賵 亘乇丕鬲 亘卮賲乇賲責銆�
賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池屫� 丕蹖賳 賲讴丕賱賲賴 蹖賴 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫池� 蹖賴 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屰� 亘夭乇诏: 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屰� "禺賵丿鬲 趩蹖".
"丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘丿" 卮丕賲賱 賳賵夭丿賴 禺胤丕蹖 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 乇丕蹖噩 賲孬賱 丕蹖賳賴. 丕蹖賳鈥屫堌臂� 讴賴 蹖賴 氐賮丨賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丕賵賳 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫池� 賵 氐賮丨賴鈥屰� 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟堐屰� 丕賵賳 蹖賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賵 蹖賴 賲孬丕賱 亘乇丕蹖 賵丕囟丨鈥屫� 讴乇丿賳 賲鬲賳.
"丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 亘丿" 乇賵 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿貙 丌乇賵賲鈥屫⒇辟堎� 禺賵賳丿貙 賴乇 亘禺卮卮 (賴乇 賲睾丕賱胤賴鈥屫�) 乇賵 趩賳丿亘丕乇 禺賵賳丿. 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵賳丿卮 賵 丕夭卮 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴乇丿 鬲丕 賴賲賵賳鈥屫焚堌� 讴賴 乇賵蹖 噩賱丿 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴貙 丨乇賮 丨爻丕亘 夭丿.
倬.賳: 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 賲禺丕胤亘 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵噩賵丕賳賴貙 讴丕卮 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴賲蹖 乇賵賵賳鈥屫� 賵 爻丕丿賴鈥屫� 賲蹖鈥屫ㄙ堌�.
May 14, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 賲賮賷丿 賵賲賳卮胤 賱賱匕賴賳
賲鬲賵丕賮乇 賱賱鬲丨賲賷賱 賮賷 賲賵賯毓 賲賷丿賷丕 賮丕賷乇 mediafire
賲鬲賵丕賮乇 賱賱鬲丨賲賷賱 賮賷 賲賵賯毓 賲賷丿賷丕 賮丕賷乇 mediafire
February 26, 2017
賲丕丿丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賮賷丿丞 賵匕丕鬲 賯賷賲丞賸.. 丕丨亘亘鬲賴 .. 賮賷 賳馗乇賷 賴賵 賱賷爻 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賳 賷禺鬲氐 賮賯胤 .. 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓賵丕賲 賴賲 賲爻鬲禺丿賲賵賳 賱賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷賱 賮賷 賷賵賲賷丕鬲賴賲 賵噩賲賷毓 毓賱丕賯丕鬲賴賲 .. 賵亘丨丕噩丞 賱賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 賰賷賮 賵亘賲丕 賷賳胤賯 .. 賵賰爻亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賮賳 亘丨丿 匕丕鬲賴 賲爻賱賷 賵乇丕卅毓 .. 賮卮賰乇丕 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 賲噩賴賵丿丞.
March 5, 2017
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵乇丕賯賷 賵乇睾賲 毓丿丿 氐賮丨丕鬲賴 丕賱賯賱賷賱丞 廿賱丕 丕賳賴 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓丕賱賷 賵丕爻鬲噩賲丕毓 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賵賯鬲 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞
賷鬲賰賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賵丕賱賲噩丕丿賱丕鬲 .. 丨賷孬 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丕爻賱賵亘 爻賱爻 賵亘丕賱乇爻賵賲 賵丕賱丕賲孬賱丞 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賵丕乇丞 賵丕賱賲爻鬲禺丿賲丞 .. 賵賲賳 丕賱賲囟丨賰 廿賳賰 爻鬲噩丿 廿賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 鬲賲乇 毓賱賷賰 亘卮賰賱 卮亘賴 賷賵賲賷.. 賵毓賳丿賲丕 賰賳鬲 兀賯乇兀 賰賱 賳賵毓 賵兀賯乇兀 兀賲孬賱鬲賴 兀丨丕賵賱 丕爻鬲丨囟丕乇 丕賲孬賱鬲賷 丕賱禺丕氐丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳胤亘賯 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵毓.. 賰賲丕 賵廿賳賷 兀氐亘丨鬲 兀丿賯賯 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賵丕賱禺胤亘 賱丕爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 ...
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿噩丿丕賸 賵兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賴 ..
賷鬲賰賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賵丕賱賲噩丕丿賱丕鬲 .. 丨賷孬 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丕爻賱賵亘 爻賱爻 賵亘丕賱乇爻賵賲 賵丕賱丕賲孬賱丞 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賵丕乇丞 賵丕賱賲爻鬲禺丿賲丞 .. 賵賲賳 丕賱賲囟丨賰 廿賳賰 爻鬲噩丿 廿賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 鬲賲乇 毓賱賷賰 亘卮賰賱 卮亘賴 賷賵賲賷.. 賵毓賳丿賲丕 賰賳鬲 兀賯乇兀 賰賱 賳賵毓 賵兀賯乇兀 兀賲孬賱鬲賴 兀丨丕賵賱 丕爻鬲丨囟丕乇 丕賲孬賱鬲賷 丕賱禺丕氐丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳胤亘賯 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵毓.. 賰賲丕 賵廿賳賷 兀氐亘丨鬲 兀丿賯賯 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賵丕賱禺胤亘 賱丕爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 ...
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿噩丿丕賸 賵兀賳氐丨 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賴 ..
Read
February 27, 2017賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賷卮乇丨 亘卮賰賱 賲亘爻胤 胤乇賯 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賴丿賮 賱丕賯賳丕毓 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 丕賵 賰爻亘 丕賱賳賯丕卮貙 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賱氐賵乇 賱鬲亘爻賷胤 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賯丿 賷囟賷賮 丕賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱丕卮禺丕氐 賵賱賷爻 噩賲賷毓賴賲 賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賮賴賲.
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賮賴賲 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱丨賷賱 丕賱鬲賷 卮乇丨賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賯丕乇卅 兀賳 賷鬲匕賰乇 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕賯賮 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賲孬賱 丕賱丕毓賱丕賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨鬲賰賲 賱爻賱胤丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賱丕孬亘丕鬲 賮賰乇鬲賴丕貙 (賲孬賱 丕毓賱丕賳 賲毓噩賵賳 丕賱丕爻賳丕賳 丕賱匕賷 賷胤賱亘賵賳 賮賷賴 乇兀賷 胤亘賷亘 賮賷賳氐丨賴賲 亘廿賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓噩賵賳 賴賵 丕賱丕賮囟賱)貙 丕賵 賰賲孬丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 (廿賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賰丕賳賵丕 賷賳丕賲賵賳 賱鬲爻毓 爻丕毓丕鬲賺 賯亘賱 毓賯賵丿賺 賲囟鬲貙 廿匕賳 賳丨賳 賳丨鬲丕噩 兀賳 賳賳丕賲 賱鬲爻毓 爻丕毓丕鬲 賰匕賱賰).
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賳賷 亘丕賱丕賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮乇丨 丕賱賮賰乇丞貙 賱匕丕 賴賵 爻賴賱 賵亘丿丕賷丞 乇丕卅毓丞 賱賰賱 賲賳 賷丨亘 丕賳 賷亘丿兀 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賰鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 丕禺鬲氐乇 賵亘卮賰賱 噩賲賷賱 噩賲賷毓 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘丕賱丨賷賱丞貙 賮賰丕賳鬲 賰賱 賮賰乇丞 鬲兀禺丿 氐賮丨丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賮賯胤貙 賰賲丕 丕賳 丕囟丕賮丕鬲賴 賲賳 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲貙 丕睾賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘孬 賮賷賴 丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲乇毓賷 丕賳鬲亘丕賴 丕賱賯丕乇卅.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賯鬲亘爻 賲賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 (廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賱丕 賷賵賱丿 丨賯丕卅賯 噩丿賷丿丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賷爻賲丨 賱賱賲乇亍 兀賳 賷鬲丨賯賯 賲賳 丕賱廿鬲爻丕賯 賵丕賱鬲賲丕爻賰 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賵賱賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 亘丕賱囟亘胤 賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯 兀賳賴 兀丿丕丞賹 賮毓丕賱丞 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵鬲亘丕丿賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱丨噩噩)貙 賵 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻 卮毓乇鬲 亘兀賳賴 賱丕 亘丿 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
丕賱卮賰乇 丕賱噩夭賷賱 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 賵丕鬲賲賳賶 賱賴 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕氐丿丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賳丕噩丨丞
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賮賴賲 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱丨賷賱 丕賱鬲賷 卮乇丨賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賯丕乇卅 兀賳 賷鬲匕賰乇 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕賯賮 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賲孬賱 丕賱丕毓賱丕賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨鬲賰賲 賱爻賱胤丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賱丕孬亘丕鬲 賮賰乇鬲賴丕貙 (賲孬賱 丕毓賱丕賳 賲毓噩賵賳 丕賱丕爻賳丕賳 丕賱匕賷 賷胤賱亘賵賳 賮賷賴 乇兀賷 胤亘賷亘 賮賷賳氐丨賴賲 亘廿賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲毓噩賵賳 賴賵 丕賱丕賮囟賱)貙 丕賵 賰賲孬丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 (廿賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賰丕賳賵丕 賷賳丕賲賵賳 賱鬲爻毓 爻丕毓丕鬲賺 賯亘賱 毓賯賵丿賺 賲囟鬲貙 廿匕賳 賳丨賳 賳丨鬲丕噩 兀賳 賳賳丕賲 賱鬲爻毓 爻丕毓丕鬲 賰匕賱賰).
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賳賷 亘丕賱丕賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮乇丨 丕賱賮賰乇丞貙 賱匕丕 賴賵 爻賴賱 賵亘丿丕賷丞 乇丕卅毓丞 賱賰賱 賲賳 賷丨亘 丕賳 賷亘丿兀 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賰鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 丕禺鬲氐乇 賵亘卮賰賱 噩賲賷賱 噩賲賷毓 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘丕賱丨賷賱丞貙 賮賰丕賳鬲 賰賱 賮賰乇丞 鬲兀禺丿 氐賮丨丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賮賯胤貙 賰賲丕 丕賳 丕囟丕賮丕鬲賴 賲賳 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲貙 丕睾賳賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵亘孬 賮賷賴 丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲乇毓賷 丕賳鬲亘丕賴 丕賱賯丕乇卅.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賯鬲亘爻 賲賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 (廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賱丕 賷賵賱丿 丨賯丕卅賯 噩丿賷丿丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賷爻賲丨 賱賱賲乇亍 兀賳 賷鬲丨賯賯 賲賳 丕賱廿鬲爻丕賯 賵丕賱鬲賲丕爻賰 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賵賱賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 亘丕賱囟亘胤 賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯 兀賳賴 兀丿丕丞賹 賮毓丕賱丞 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵鬲亘丕丿賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱丨噩噩)貙 賵 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻 卮毓乇鬲 亘兀賳賴 賱丕 亘丿 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
丕賱卮賰乇 丕賱噩夭賷賱 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 賵丕鬲賲賳賶 賱賴 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕氐丿丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賳丕噩丨丞
March 9, 2014
Ali Almossawi's book, Bad Arguments is hard to categorize, and hard to place in the bookstore. I am still working my way through this slim, but dense, reference book. It's more than it appears to be at first glance.
It is neither a children's book, nor a facile review of the topic (improving your ability to clarify thoughts and analyze arguments.) Each page-illustration contains condensed, effective tools for "the analysis and communication of ideas" - a subject worthy of the necessary reflection required for this book. I found it somewhat more difficult than the author intended, but worthwhile anyway. I recommend studying one fallacy per week. It will take me about 4 or 5 months to finish the book that way, but I'm hoping it sticks with me.
You can get a good idea of the content of the book at this website:
It is neither a children's book, nor a facile review of the topic (improving your ability to clarify thoughts and analyze arguments.) Each page-illustration contains condensed, effective tools for "the analysis and communication of ideas" - a subject worthy of the necessary reflection required for this book. I found it somewhat more difficult than the author intended, but worthwhile anyway. I recommend studying one fallacy per week. It will take me about 4 or 5 months to finish the book that way, but I'm hoping it sticks with me.
You can get a good idea of the content of the book at this website:
September 15, 2013
Brilliant book that is accompanied with conductive illustrations.
The importance of knowing about logic fallacies is summed up nicely in Almossawi's Final Remarks, "I hope that you also leave with a realization of the dangers of flimsy arguments and how commonplace they are in our everyday lives."
Hear, hear!
The book is available for free on the author's website along with a request for donation:
Not to be missed.
The importance of knowing about logic fallacies is summed up nicely in Almossawi's Final Remarks, "I hope that you also leave with a realization of the dangers of flimsy arguments and how commonplace they are in our everyday lives."
Hear, hear!
The book is available for free on the author's website along with a request for donation:
Not to be missed.
December 5, 2014
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤 賵噩賲賷賱 噩丿丕, 賴賵 毓亘乇 毓賳 卮乇丨 賲亘爻胤 賱丨賷賱 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 賵丕賱賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲, 賵亘毓囟 丕賱兀賱丕毓賷亘 丕賱賲爻鬲禺丿賲丞 賱鬲睾賷乇 賱賰爻亘 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賵亘毓囟 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 丕賱賱賷 亘賳卮賵賮賴丕 賰鬲賷乇 賳鬲賷噩丞 丕賱鬲毓氐亘 丕賵 丕賱丕毓噩丕亘 亘丕賱乇丕賷 賵毓丿賲 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘丕賱禺胤兀,
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賳賴 亘賱睾丞 賲亘爻胤丞 噩丿丕 賵丕賳賴 賮賷賴 丕賲孬賱丞 亘鬲卮乇丨 賰賱 丨賷賱丞 賵賲睾丕賱胤丞
賵賴賵 賰賱賴 毓賱賶 亘毓囟賴 50 氐賮丨丞 賳氐賴賲 氐賵乇 亘鬲卮乇丨 丕賱丨賷賱 賵丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 亘氐賵乇丞 賲毓亘乇丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賵丿 online 亘亘賱丕卮 亘毓丿賴 賱睾丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱乇丕亘胤 丿賴
丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賳賴 亘賱睾丞 賲亘爻胤丞 噩丿丕 賵丕賳賴 賮賷賴 丕賲孬賱丞 亘鬲卮乇丨 賰賱 丨賷賱丞 賵賲睾丕賱胤丞
賵賴賵 賰賱賴 毓賱賶 亘毓囟賴 50 氐賮丨丞 賳氐賴賲 氐賵乇 亘鬲卮乇丨 丕賱丨賷賱 賵丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 亘氐賵乇丞 賲毓亘乇丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賵丿 online 亘亘賱丕卮 亘毓丿賴 賱睾丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱乇丕亘胤 丿賴
July 11, 2015
Even though the illustrations are cute, this isn't a book for children. So, who is it for?
I never intended to take a course in logic. This is a casual romp through the world of illogical thought. It's nice to be reminded how easily we can be led astray. The best use so far, parsing the words of our political candidates. Already today, I can categorize the bad arguments of three presidential candidates.
Fun, and useful, just not definitive.
I never intended to take a course in logic. This is a casual romp through the world of illogical thought. It's nice to be reminded how easily we can be led astray. The best use so far, parsing the words of our political candidates. Already today, I can categorize the bad arguments of three presidential candidates.
Fun, and useful, just not definitive.
July 14, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤 賵爻賱爻 亘兀賱賮丕馗 爻賴賱丞 賵亘兀賲孬賱丞 毓賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 丕賱賲賳鬲卮乇丞 賰孬賷乇丕 賱賱兀爻賮 賮賷 丕賱廿毓賱丕賲 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 毓賲賵賲丕貙 亘賱 丕賱兀爻賵亍 兀賳賰 鬲賱丕丨馗賴丕 毓賳丿 賰亘丕乇 丕賱賲賮賰賾乇賷賳 乇睾賲 亘爻丕胤鬲賴丕 賵鬲賴丕賮鬲賴丕貙 賷乇賮賯 賲毓 賰賱賾 賲睾丕賱胤丞 賲孬丕賱 兀賵 兀賰孬乇 賲毓 賲孬丕賱 賲氐賵賾乇 賱賱鬲賵囟賷丨 兀賰孬乇貙 賰鬲丕亘 兀賳氐丨 亘賴 賰賱賾 賲賴鬲賲 亘丕賱賮賰乇 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 禺丕氐丞 丕賱賲亘鬲丿卅賷賳.
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞:
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞:
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞:
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞:
January 28, 2018
With the turn political discourse has taken, I feel like this should be required reading in high school (if not earlier). Even when the written explanations are a bit dense, the illustrations help clarify and offer context to the concept. Also, they're cute, because animals, so that's a plus.
July 30, 2015
This short little book is a good look at some of the most common fallacies. It has good use of illustrations and does a very good job conveying the information.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 647 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.