What do you think?
Rate this book
A Rulebook for Arguments
A Rulebook for Arguments is a succinct introduction to the art of writing and assessing arguments, organized around specific rules, each illustrated and explained soundly but briefly. This widely popular primer--translated into eight languages--remains the first choice in all disciplines for writers who seek straightforward guidance about how to assess arguments and how to cogently construct them. The fourth edition offers a revamped and more tightly focused approach to extended arguments, a new chapter on oral arguments, and updated examples and topics throughout.
88 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
713 people are currently reading
5,926 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews
February 24, 2024
برای من اولین مواجهه� با دنیای استدلال� و مباحثه زمانی بود که برای تدریس آیلتس خودم رو آماده می‌کرد�. ناگهان ایده‌پرداز� کافی نبود و اینکه چطور ایده� رو اثبات می‌کن� مهم‌ت� شد. از اون زمان تفکر نقادانه، روش‌ها� استدلال و منطق برام به شدت جذاب شده، چون روز به روز در کارم و زندگی بیشتر ازشون استفاده می‌کن�
و چه خوب شد این کتاب رو بالاخره خوندم. عجب کتاب مختصر و مفیدی!
نویسنده در بخش‌ها� بسیار کوتاه روش‌ها� استدلال در نوشتار و گفتار رو بررسی می‌کن� و به خطاهای شایع هم می‌پردازه�. اگر مثل من برای یاد گرفتن خیلی از این نکات که در نگاه اول ساده و حتی بدیهی به نظر میان بیچاره شده باشید، از اینکه انقدر واضح و مرتب یکجا در کنار هم قرار گرفتن واقعا ذوق‌زد� می‌شی�
:این کتاب خیلی می‌تون� براتون مفید باشه اگر
برای خودتون، آزمون یا دانشگاه نوشته‌‌ها� استدلالی می‌نویسی�
در دانشگاه، محل‌کا� یا موقعیت‌ها� دیگه باید نظراتتون رو ارائه بدید
می‌خوای� وقتی بقیه اراجیف می‌نویس� و میگن، بفهمید دقیقاً کجای کارشون اشتباهه و در صورت لزوم به روشون بیارید
در آخر باید بگم که این کتاب بسیار خلاصه‌س� و فقط نقطه� خوبی برای شروعه. از اون‌ه� که میشه دوباره و دوباره بهش برگشت، راجع به روش‌ها� ذکر شده تحقیق درست و حسابی انجام داد و در نهایت تمرینشون کرد
کانال تلگرامم که این کتاب� و صوتیش رو آپلود کردم و ریویوها رو هم می‌گذار�
۱۴۰۲/۱۲/۴
و چه خوب شد این کتاب رو بالاخره خوندم. عجب کتاب مختصر و مفیدی!
نویسنده در بخش‌ها� بسیار کوتاه روش‌ها� استدلال در نوشتار و گفتار رو بررسی می‌کن� و به خطاهای شایع هم می‌پردازه�. اگر مثل من برای یاد گرفتن خیلی از این نکات که در نگاه اول ساده و حتی بدیهی به نظر میان بیچاره شده باشید، از اینکه انقدر واضح و مرتب یکجا در کنار هم قرار گرفتن واقعا ذوق‌زد� می‌شی�
:این کتاب خیلی می‌تون� براتون مفید باشه اگر
برای خودتون، آزمون یا دانشگاه نوشته‌‌ها� استدلالی می‌نویسی�
در دانشگاه، محل‌کا� یا موقعیت‌ها� دیگه باید نظراتتون رو ارائه بدید
می‌خوای� وقتی بقیه اراجیف می‌نویس� و میگن، بفهمید دقیقاً کجای کارشون اشتباهه و در صورت لزوم به روشون بیارید
در آخر باید بگم که این کتاب بسیار خلاصه‌س� و فقط نقطه� خوبی برای شروعه. از اون‌ه� که میشه دوباره و دوباره بهش برگشت، راجع به روش‌ها� ذکر شده تحقیق درست و حسابی انجام داد و در نهایت تمرینشون کرد
کانال تلگرامم که این کتاب� و صوتیش رو آپلود کردم و ریویوها رو هم می‌گذار�
۱۴۰۲/۱۲/۴
November 14, 2015
If you want to be good at arguing, this book is for you.
I read it all in one go, and that's a bit counter-productive, seeing as you won't be able to remember all of it (unless you're crazy smart, in which case, you probably don't need this book). But it is definitely useful, and works very well as a, well, rulebook for arguments.
Yeah, it's a well chosen title.
I read it all in one go, and that's a bit counter-productive, seeing as you won't be able to remember all of it (unless you're crazy smart, in which case, you probably don't need this book). But it is definitely useful, and works very well as a, well, rulebook for arguments.
Yeah, it's a well chosen title.
September 7, 2015
Many books on argument/informal logic tend to bog down into encyclopedic explorations of fallacies or pitch a lot of exercises at the reader.
Not this title--at fewer than 100 pages it selects concision as a goal.
I suspect Weston's book would be a great title for students needing an introduction to the subject--as well as for the experienced reader who vaguely remembers what modus ponens, modus tollens, and "affirming the consequent" are but needs a refresher for his or her aging brain, it's a lean and pithy reference. (The downside for that function is that there is no index.)
A Rulebook for Arguments invites comparison to Strunk and White's Elements of Style; the author recommends keeping his own title next to the latter on the shelf. I'm not in a position to argue...
Not this title--at fewer than 100 pages it selects concision as a goal.
I suspect Weston's book would be a great title for students needing an introduction to the subject--as well as for the experienced reader who vaguely remembers what modus ponens, modus tollens, and "affirming the consequent" are but needs a refresher for his or her aging brain, it's a lean and pithy reference. (The downside for that function is that there is no index.)
A Rulebook for Arguments invites comparison to Strunk and White's Elements of Style; the author recommends keeping his own title next to the latter on the shelf. I'm not in a position to argue...
July 19, 2019
This is one of those books which teaches you a lot. You should not read it in one go, rather read it as slowly as you can and try to understand what it's saying because it carries very interesting points.
Framing of arguments and recognizing fallacies, both are explained very well in the book. It's a very readable book so difficulty in understanding of any point would not occur (as it occurs in many books that are related to critical thinking).
The flow explained to make an argument or to write an argumentative essay is extremely useful as it reminded me of - several video essays, analytical essays of a text or a movie, etc. which make use of that flow.
This is one of those important books which should be read by most of the people so that as a society we can learn to communicate and analyze things more effectively.
Framing of arguments and recognizing fallacies, both are explained very well in the book. It's a very readable book so difficulty in understanding of any point would not occur (as it occurs in many books that are related to critical thinking).
The flow explained to make an argument or to write an argumentative essay is extremely useful as it reminded me of - several video essays, analytical essays of a text or a movie, etc. which make use of that flow.
This is one of those important books which should be read by most of the people so that as a society we can learn to communicate and analyze things more effectively.
December 25, 2009
Great way to learn how to win an argument. Rules include: present your ideas in a natural order; use definitive, specific, concrete language; provide background information; avoid personal attacks.
Favorite section is the one on fallacies.
Fallacies include:
ad hominem - attacking the person of a source rather than his or her qualifications or reliability
ad ignorantiam - arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false
ad misericordiam - appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment
ad populum - appealing to the emotion of a crowd (i.e. Everybody's doing it.)
begging the question - implicitly using your conclusion as a premise
circular argument
complex question - posing a question in such a way that people cannot agree or disagree with you without committing themselves to some other claim you wish to promote
denying the antecendent - another example of overlooking alternatives
equivocation - sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument
false cause - generic term for any questionable conclusion about cause and effect
false dilemma - reducing the options you consider to just two, often diametrically opposed to each other and unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed
loaded language
non sequitur - drawing a conclusion that does not follow, that is, a conclusion that is not a reasonable inference from, or even related to, the evidence
overgeneralizing
overlooking alternatives
persuasive definition
poisoning the well - using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it
post hoc, ergo propter hoc - assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time
red herring - introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject
straw man - a caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to hold, so that it is easy to refute
Favorite section is the one on fallacies.
Fallacies include:
ad hominem - attacking the person of a source rather than his or her qualifications or reliability
ad ignorantiam - arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false
ad misericordiam - appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment
ad populum - appealing to the emotion of a crowd (i.e. Everybody's doing it.)
begging the question - implicitly using your conclusion as a premise
circular argument
complex question - posing a question in such a way that people cannot agree or disagree with you without committing themselves to some other claim you wish to promote
denying the antecendent - another example of overlooking alternatives
equivocation - sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument
false cause - generic term for any questionable conclusion about cause and effect
false dilemma - reducing the options you consider to just two, often diametrically opposed to each other and unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed
loaded language
non sequitur - drawing a conclusion that does not follow, that is, a conclusion that is not a reasonable inference from, or even related to, the evidence
overgeneralizing
overlooking alternatives
persuasive definition
poisoning the well - using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it
post hoc, ergo propter hoc - assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time
red herring - introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject
straw man - a caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to hold, so that it is easy to refute
April 1, 2017
a must-read for anyone who wants to think clearly and/or write argumentative essays.
January 29, 2024
Good writing is good thinking.
Well done book about structuring and organizing your ideas for persuasive writing.
Well done book about structuring and organizing your ideas for persuasive writing.
July 12, 2014
Anthony Weston encourages the use of representative examples and counterexamples, warns of the hazards of statistics (like ), imparts the importance of impartial and reliable sources, explains the correlational relationship between cause and effect, presents deductive reasoning in the words of Sherlock Holmes, preaches the value of librarians, and can teach a thing or two to Badly Behaving Authors.
The Some Common Fallacies chapter is excellent. The examples I run into the most:
ad hominem
On the Big Benefits Row Live, Katie Hopkins (a vile woman) responded to Annabel Giles's well-reasoned argument with a personal insult instead of refuting the argument:(Er, she was the face of Max Factor, I think she 'made it'.)
ad misericordiam
One word: X-Factor. The sob stories 'appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.'
ad populum
"Everyone's doing it!" Sex (for teenagers). Brazilian waxes. iPhones. '...appealing to a person to go along with the crowd.'
As the author invites criticism, I have only one complaint: No forms of were included. Bias is explicitly mentioned once, during the introduction of section IV on Sources. I've tried to find a book that does include them and this was, in the end, the most likely candidate to cover this topic, so I'm a tad disappointed.
A Rulebook for Arguments really is what it says, a short and concise, but easy to understand, list of rules on how to construct a solid argument.
Recommended to everyone 12+, including authors of both fiction and non-fiction, for everything from a short and simple discussion to essays, oral presentations, and dissertations.
Criticisms and suggestions, as always, are welcome. ~Page x, from the Preface
Writers --at all levels--need feedback. It is through others' eyes that you can see best where you are unclear or hasty of just plain implausible. Feedback improves your logic too. Objections may come up that you hadn't expected. Premises you thought were secure may turn out to need defending, while other premises may turn out to be more secure than they seemed. You may even pick up a dew new facts or examples. Feedback is a "reality check" all the way around --welcome it. ~ page 64,Rule 38
The Some Common Fallacies chapter is excellent. The examples I run into the most:
ad hominem
On the Big Benefits Row Live, Katie Hopkins (a vile woman) responded to Annabel Giles's well-reasoned argument with a personal insult instead of refuting the argument:(Er, she was the face of Max Factor, I think she 'made it'.)
ad misericordiam
One word: X-Factor. The sob stories 'appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.'
ad populum
"Everyone's doing it!" Sex (for teenagers). Brazilian waxes. iPhones. '...appealing to a person to go along with the crowd.'
As the author invites criticism, I have only one complaint: No forms of were included. Bias is explicitly mentioned once, during the introduction of section IV on Sources. I've tried to find a book that does include them and this was, in the end, the most likely candidate to cover this topic, so I'm a tad disappointed.
A Rulebook for Arguments really is what it says, a short and concise, but easy to understand, list of rules on how to construct a solid argument.
Recommended to everyone 12+, including authors of both fiction and non-fiction, for everything from a short and simple discussion to essays, oral presentations, and dissertations.
March 14, 2019
Argument here does not refer to the equivalent of a verbal fistfight. Rather, argument refers to reasoning and rhetoric. It is generally persuasive in style, or at least should be, and should reasonably follow standards of logic or critical thinking. Argument is defining, expounding, and defending a proposition or premise. It may also be the reverse if it is aimed at deconstructing an erroneous conclusion.
Therefore, argument is of extreme importance to preachers. It is the preacher’s vocation to be defining, expounding, and defending the propositions of Holy Scripture. For that matter, every Christian is to conscientiously defend and contend for the faith and should be concerned about good argument evaluation and construction.
In this vein, I recommend A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston. This is a rulebook as the title suggests, but it is concise and readable. The book should be read through one time and then referred to often when analyzing or building arguments. Its brevity is one aspect of its value. You can refer to a section and quickly refresh your memory about some concept. The author does also give some sources for larger works if the reader is interested.
Therefore, argument is of extreme importance to preachers. It is the preacher’s vocation to be defining, expounding, and defending the propositions of Holy Scripture. For that matter, every Christian is to conscientiously defend and contend for the faith and should be concerned about good argument evaluation and construction.
In this vein, I recommend A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston. This is a rulebook as the title suggests, but it is concise and readable. The book should be read through one time and then referred to often when analyzing or building arguments. Its brevity is one aspect of its value. You can refer to a section and quickly refresh your memory about some concept. The author does also give some sources for larger works if the reader is interested.
September 23, 2018
A very short book, full of obvious statements. A few interesting points here and there, but nothing that the average person couldn't arrive at with a few seconds' thinking.
By stating that the book is obvious, I'm not just saying that it didn't have anything that I couldn't have concluded -- I'm saying that it had nothing that I hadn't concluded.
I don't think any average person does not already intuitively abide by the logic put forth in the book.
The best part was probably the voucher example used. But hey, instead of reading a book on argumentative writing, go read a short blog post about school vouchers and you'll have absorbed 99% of the interesting things in this book.
By stating that the book is obvious, I'm not just saying that it didn't have anything that I couldn't have concluded -- I'm saying that it had nothing that I hadn't concluded.
I don't think any average person does not already intuitively abide by the logic put forth in the book.
The best part was probably the voucher example used. But hey, instead of reading a book on argumentative writing, go read a short blog post about school vouchers and you'll have absorbed 99% of the interesting things in this book.
November 18, 2020
Có l� nhiều người cho rằng đây là một sách dạy cách đ� chiến thắng trong tranh luận, nhưng với mình, nó ch� là một cuốn sách khá bài bản v� suy luận và logic. Mục đích của tranh luận không phải đ� chiến thắng mà là đ� tìm ra luận điểm tốt nhất.
Điểm tr� là mục lục sách quá sơ sài, các ví d� chưa được súc t��ch và hay lắm.
Soạn lại mục lục đ� d� ghi nh�:
Chương 1. Hình thành một lập luận ngắn
1. Phân biệt tiền đ� và kết luận
2. Trình bày ý tưởng theo th� t� t� nhiên
3. Bắt đầu t� những tiền đ� đáng tin cậy
4. Hãy c� th� và chính xác
5. Tránh dùng ngôn t� cảm xúc
6. S� dụng thuật ng� nhất quán
7. S� dụng một nghĩa duy nhất cho mỗi thuật ng�
Chương 2. Lập luận bằng ví d�
8. S� dụng nhiều ví d�
9. S� dụng những ví d� mang tính đại diện
10. Thông tin nền tảng là cốt yếu
11. Cân nhắc các phản ví d�
Chương 3. Lập luận bằng phép loại suy
12. Phép loại suy đòi hỏi s� dụng những ví d� tương đồng có liên quan
Chương 4. Lập luận bằng phép căn c�
13. Nên ghi rõ nguồn
14. Tìm những nguồn đáng tin cậy
15. Tìm những nguồn khách quan
16. Kiểm tra chéo các nguồn
17. Công kích cá nhân không làm mất đi giá tr� của một nguồn
Chương 5. Lập luận v� nguyên nhân
18. Giải thích vì sao nguyên nhân dẫn đến h� qu�
19. Đ� xuất nguyên nhân kh� dĩ nhất
20. Những s� kiện tương quan không nhất thiết liên quan Một vài s� kiện tương quan ch� là ngẫu nhiên.
21. Những s� kiện tương quan có th� có chung một nguyên nhân
22. Không s� kiện nào trong hai s� kiện tương quan là nguyên nhân của s� kiện kia
23. Những nguyên nhân có th� rất phức tạp
Chương 6. Suy luận
24. Khẳng định luận (modus ponens)
25. Nghịch đoạn luận (modus tollens)
26. Tam đoạn luận gi� thuyết
27. Tam đoạn luận tuyển
28. Song quan luận
29. Phản chứng luận (Reductio ad absurdum)
30. Suy luận trong vài bước
Chương 7. Viết một bài luận
A. Nghiên cứu vấn đ�
A1. Nghiên cứu những lập luận trên tất c� các mặt của vấn đ�
A2. Thẩm tra và bảo v� tất c� tiền đ� của từng lập luận
A3. Xem xét và cân nhắc lại các lập luận khi chúng bắt đầu rõ nét
Chương 8. Viết một bài luận
B. Những điểm chính của bài luận
B2. Đưa ra một tuyên b� hay một đ� xuất rõ ràng
B3. Phát triển đầy đ� các lập luận của bạn
B4. Cân nhắc những lý do phản biện
B5. Cân nhắc những lựa chọn khác
Chương 9. Viết một bài luận
C. Viết
C1. Bám theo dàn bài của bạn
C2. Giới thiệu thật ngắn gọn
C3. Đưa ra từng lập luận một
C4. Làm rõ, làm rõ, làm rõ
C5. Chống lại phản bác bằng lập luận
C6. Đừng tuyên b� nhiều hơn những gì bạn đưa ra Đừng kết thúc mà không có định kiến.
Chương 10. Ngụy biện
Công kích cá nhân (ad hominem)
Ngụy biện bất kh� tri (ad ignorantiam) (dựa vào s� thiếu hiểu biết)
Lợi dụng lòng thương hại (ad misericordiam)
Kêu gọi công luận
Khẳng định hậu thức
Điệp nguyên luận (begging the question)
Ngụy biện quanh quẩn: tương t� như Điệp nguyên luận.
Ngụy biện nghi vấn phức hợp
Ph� định tiền kiện
Lối nói lập l�
Nguyên nhân sai
Song đoạn luận sai
Ngôn t� cảm xúc
Phi logic
Ngụy biện “người mà�
Định nghĩa thuyết phục
B� độc vào giếng
Ngụy biện nhân qu� (pos hoc, ergo propter hoc) (nghĩa đen là, “sau cái này, do đó bởi vì điều đó�)
Ngụy biện cá trích đ� (red herring)
Người rơm
Ngôn ng� chồn
Điểm tr� là mục lục sách quá sơ sài, các ví d� chưa được súc t��ch và hay lắm.
Soạn lại mục lục đ� d� ghi nh�:
Chương 1. Hình thành một lập luận ngắn
1. Phân biệt tiền đ� và kết luận
2. Trình bày ý tưởng theo th� t� t� nhiên
3. Bắt đầu t� những tiền đ� đáng tin cậy
4. Hãy c� th� và chính xác
5. Tránh dùng ngôn t� cảm xúc
6. S� dụng thuật ng� nhất quán
7. S� dụng một nghĩa duy nhất cho mỗi thuật ng�
Chương 2. Lập luận bằng ví d�
8. S� dụng nhiều ví d�
9. S� dụng những ví d� mang tính đại diện
10. Thông tin nền tảng là cốt yếu
11. Cân nhắc các phản ví d�
Chương 3. Lập luận bằng phép loại suy
12. Phép loại suy đòi hỏi s� dụng những ví d� tương đồng có liên quan
Chương 4. Lập luận bằng phép căn c�
13. Nên ghi rõ nguồn
14. Tìm những nguồn đáng tin cậy
15. Tìm những nguồn khách quan
16. Kiểm tra chéo các nguồn
17. Công kích cá nhân không làm mất đi giá tr� của một nguồn
Chương 5. Lập luận v� nguyên nhân
18. Giải thích vì sao nguyên nhân dẫn đến h� qu�
19. Đ� xuất nguyên nhân kh� dĩ nhất
20. Những s� kiện tương quan không nhất thiết liên quan Một vài s� kiện tương quan ch� là ngẫu nhiên.
21. Những s� kiện tương quan có th� có chung một nguyên nhân
22. Không s� kiện nào trong hai s� kiện tương quan là nguyên nhân của s� kiện kia
23. Những nguyên nhân có th� rất phức tạp
Chương 6. Suy luận
24. Khẳng định luận (modus ponens)
25. Nghịch đoạn luận (modus tollens)
26. Tam đoạn luận gi� thuyết
27. Tam đoạn luận tuyển
28. Song quan luận
29. Phản chứng luận (Reductio ad absurdum)
30. Suy luận trong vài bước
Chương 7. Viết một bài luận
A. Nghiên cứu vấn đ�
A1. Nghiên cứu những lập luận trên tất c� các mặt của vấn đ�
A2. Thẩm tra và bảo v� tất c� tiền đ� của từng lập luận
A3. Xem xét và cân nhắc lại các lập luận khi chúng bắt đầu rõ nét
Chương 8. Viết một bài luận
B. Những điểm chính của bài luận
B2. Đưa ra một tuyên b� hay một đ� xuất rõ ràng
B3. Phát triển đầy đ� các lập luận của bạn
B4. Cân nhắc những lý do phản biện
B5. Cân nhắc những lựa chọn khác
Chương 9. Viết một bài luận
C. Viết
C1. Bám theo dàn bài của bạn
C2. Giới thiệu thật ngắn gọn
C3. Đưa ra từng lập luận một
C4. Làm rõ, làm rõ, làm rõ
C5. Chống lại phản bác bằng lập luận
C6. Đừng tuyên b� nhiều hơn những gì bạn đưa ra Đừng kết thúc mà không có định kiến.
Chương 10. Ngụy biện
Công kích cá nhân (ad hominem)
Ngụy biện bất kh� tri (ad ignorantiam) (dựa vào s� thiếu hiểu biết)
Lợi dụng lòng thương hại (ad misericordiam)
Kêu gọi công luận
Khẳng định hậu thức
Điệp nguyên luận (begging the question)
Ngụy biện quanh quẩn: tương t� như Điệp nguyên luận.
Ngụy biện nghi vấn phức hợp
Ph� định tiền kiện
Lối nói lập l�
Nguyên nhân sai
Song đoạn luận sai
Ngôn t� cảm xúc
Phi logic
Ngụy biện “người mà�
Định nghĩa thuyết phục
B� độc vào giếng
Ngụy biện nhân qu� (pos hoc, ergo propter hoc) (nghĩa đen là, “sau cái này, do đó bởi vì điều đó�)
Ngụy biện cá trích đ� (red herring)
Người rơm
Ngôn ng� chồn
January 30, 2020
El autor enumera y explica los puntos a tener en cuenta para argumentar de manera coherente. El libro está orientado más que nada a la escritura de ensayos, pero sus reglas pueden ser aplicadas también a la oralidad.
Si la idea es aprender a debatir para tener mejores discusiones -sean cuales sean sus formas-, no solo con el fin de salir victoriosos de ellas sino para acercarnos a la verdad, esta es una obra valiosa que tiene mucho para aportar a la formación de quienes no conocemos mucho del tema.
Si la idea es aprender a debatir para tener mejores discusiones -sean cuales sean sus formas-, no solo con el fin de salir victoriosos de ellas sino para acercarnos a la verdad, esta es una obra valiosa que tiene mucho para aportar a la formación de quienes no conocemos mucho del tema.
September 13, 2018
Meh. This handbook is very short and basic. It gives an introduction to arguments and has some helpful tips for writing essays and giving speeches. It's organized so that each "rule" can be referenced by number, grouped according to topic. This could be effective for a class or prolonged study of this material, but I'm not sure I would recommend it beyond a high school level (and, at the same time, I'm not sure I would recommend it to high school students either because of the content of some of the examples - one of which is about having sex in space). Its info is too basic for older students and its content invites problems with younger students. I was assigned this book for a graduate-level Research and Writing class, but likely won't be using it much, if at all, with the other resources that are out there about the same material.
I didn't appreciate that the author uses a lot of political and religious examples for demonstrating arguments and shows a pretty consistent bias in the way he presents them. It got to be pretty annoying to see certain viewpoints repeatedly used to demonstrate invalid arguments. He also made a fair amount of unsubstantiated claims while attempting to prove his point about certain "rules" which makes no sense to me. Why make poor arguments in a book about arguments? He cites sources for some of his claims so it just seems lazy, ignorant or arrogant to not cite sources for all of his claims as if the reader should take as fact his opinion on certain current issues (breaking his own Rule #13). I'm not really sure why he decided to make so many of the example arguments political/religious in the first place; it seemed like a completely unnecessary spin for the the scope of this book. I can understand trying to make a book relevant with current examples, but if an author is going to attempt that, they should try a lot harder to avoid bias and, at the very least, leave out their own personal opinions about things; instead this author presents many of them as fact. It really undermines the purpose of the book.
The author claims that this book is designed to fulfill a need for a "rulebook" vs. a textbook on this topic, but unless you plan to reference the "rules" by number over an extended period of time or with multiple people, I think most readers would be better off with a slightly (if not significantly) more in-depth treatment of this topic. Even if you did intend to reference lots of these rules, it seems like it would serve students better to have them learn the "rules" by name (e.g. "Seek impartial sources," "hypothetical syllogism," and "signpost energetically") instead of by number so that they actually learn the rule by its quality, not some random number assigned to it. Isn't it easier to just tell someone to "Be concrete and concise" rather than to refer them to Rule #4 in their rulebook?
This is pretty bare bones and, combined with the unnecessary controversy and bias, it just didn't do much for me.
I didn't appreciate that the author uses a lot of political and religious examples for demonstrating arguments and shows a pretty consistent bias in the way he presents them. It got to be pretty annoying to see certain viewpoints repeatedly used to demonstrate invalid arguments. He also made a fair amount of unsubstantiated claims while attempting to prove his point about certain "rules" which makes no sense to me. Why make poor arguments in a book about arguments? He cites sources for some of his claims so it just seems lazy, ignorant or arrogant to not cite sources for all of his claims as if the reader should take as fact his opinion on certain current issues (breaking his own Rule #13). I'm not really sure why he decided to make so many of the example arguments political/religious in the first place; it seemed like a completely unnecessary spin for the the scope of this book. I can understand trying to make a book relevant with current examples, but if an author is going to attempt that, they should try a lot harder to avoid bias and, at the very least, leave out their own personal opinions about things; instead this author presents many of them as fact. It really undermines the purpose of the book.
The author claims that this book is designed to fulfill a need for a "rulebook" vs. a textbook on this topic, but unless you plan to reference the "rules" by number over an extended period of time or with multiple people, I think most readers would be better off with a slightly (if not significantly) more in-depth treatment of this topic. Even if you did intend to reference lots of these rules, it seems like it would serve students better to have them learn the "rules" by name (e.g. "Seek impartial sources," "hypothetical syllogism," and "signpost energetically") instead of by number so that they actually learn the rule by its quality, not some random number assigned to it. Isn't it easier to just tell someone to "Be concrete and concise" rather than to refer them to Rule #4 in their rulebook?
This is pretty bare bones and, combined with the unnecessary controversy and bias, it just didn't do much for me.
August 16, 2018
فصل اول به قواعد كلي بحث مي پردازد مانند: ١- فرضيات را از نتيجه تمييز دهيد. ٢- ايده هاي خود را به شكلي منظم بيان كنيد. ٣- با فرض هاي موثق شروع كنيد. ٤- زباني صريح، دقيق و انضمامي به كار گيريد. ٥- از گفتار جهت دار بپرهيزيد. ٦- از واژه هاي يك دست استفاده كنيد. ٧- هر واژه را فقط در يك معني بكار بريد.
فصل دوم تا ششم به قواعد جزيي تري مي پردازد: ٨- آيا بايد بيش از يك مثال زد؟ ٩- آيا مثال هايمان روشنگرند؟ ١٠- داشتن اطلاعات پيشين ضروري است. ١١- آيا مثال نقضي وجود دارد؟ ١٢- بحث كردن با تمثيل( در تمثيل بايد از مثالهايي استفاده كرد كه به شكل مناسبي مشابهت دارند). ١٣- ذكر منابع ضروري است. ١٤- آيا منابع مطلع در اختيار داريم؟ ١٥- آيا منابع مان بي طرف اند؟ ١٦- منابع را از هر نظر بررسي كنيد. ١٧- حمله به شخصيت كسي، آن منبع را بي اعتبار نمي كند. ١٨- آيا بحث مان توضيح مي دهد كه چگونه علت موجب معلول مي شود؟ ١٩- آيا محتمل ترين علت موجب نتيجه شده است؟ ٢٠- اتفاقاتي كه از پي يكديگر مي آيند، لزوما با يكديگر مرتبط نيستند. ٢١- برخي اتفاق هاي همزمان علتي مشترك دارند. ٢٢- هر يك از اتفاقاتي كه همزمان رخ مي دهند ممكن است معلول ديگري باشد. ٢٣- ممكن است علت ها پيچيده باشد. ٢٤- بحث بوسيله قاعده مقدم. ٢٥- بحث به وسيله قاعده نفي تالي. ٢٦- قياس شرطي. ٢٧- قياس انفصالي. ٢٨- برهان ذوحدين. ٢٩- برهان خلف ٣٠- انجام بحث هاي قياسي در چند مرحله
فصل هفت و هشت و نه در مورد چگونگي نوشتن يك مقاله ي مباحثه اي هست.
فصل دهم مغالطلات. و فهرست راهنماي مغالطلات و ضميمه مي باشد.
اين كتاب راهنماي خوبي براي فهميدن منطق پشت كتاب تبصره ٢٢ هست. در مورد تبصره ٢٢ در صفحه مربوط به اين كتاب نوشتم و به نظر مياد اصل ماجرا برهان خلف يا يجورايي قاعده نفي تالي هست.
فصل دوم تا ششم به قواعد جزيي تري مي پردازد: ٨- آيا بايد بيش از يك مثال زد؟ ٩- آيا مثال هايمان روشنگرند؟ ١٠- داشتن اطلاعات پيشين ضروري است. ١١- آيا مثال نقضي وجود دارد؟ ١٢- بحث كردن با تمثيل( در تمثيل بايد از مثالهايي استفاده كرد كه به شكل مناسبي مشابهت دارند). ١٣- ذكر منابع ضروري است. ١٤- آيا منابع مطلع در اختيار داريم؟ ١٥- آيا منابع مان بي طرف اند؟ ١٦- منابع را از هر نظر بررسي كنيد. ١٧- حمله به شخصيت كسي، آن منبع را بي اعتبار نمي كند. ١٨- آيا بحث مان توضيح مي دهد كه چگونه علت موجب معلول مي شود؟ ١٩- آيا محتمل ترين علت موجب نتيجه شده است؟ ٢٠- اتفاقاتي كه از پي يكديگر مي آيند، لزوما با يكديگر مرتبط نيستند. ٢١- برخي اتفاق هاي همزمان علتي مشترك دارند. ٢٢- هر يك از اتفاقاتي كه همزمان رخ مي دهند ممكن است معلول ديگري باشد. ٢٣- ممكن است علت ها پيچيده باشد. ٢٤- بحث بوسيله قاعده مقدم. ٢٥- بحث به وسيله قاعده نفي تالي. ٢٦- قياس شرطي. ٢٧- قياس انفصالي. ٢٨- برهان ذوحدين. ٢٩- برهان خلف ٣٠- انجام بحث هاي قياسي در چند مرحله
فصل هفت و هشت و نه در مورد چگونگي نوشتن يك مقاله ي مباحثه اي هست.
فصل دهم مغالطلات. و فهرست راهنماي مغالطلات و ضميمه مي باشد.
اين كتاب راهنماي خوبي براي فهميدن منطق پشت كتاب تبصره ٢٢ هست. در مورد تبصره ٢٢ در صفحه مربوط به اين كتاب نوشتم و به نظر مياد اصل ماجرا برهان خلف يا يجورايي قاعده نفي تالي هست.
February 9, 2022
Good, short and concise rulebook
I have a Master's degree in Applied Philosophy and I bought this book because I wanted a neat little book to remind me of the basics in logic and deductive reasoning. For this purpose, the book is brilliant. The different sections of the book are short and concise. There is an appendix with examples of logical fallacies in the back. However, the text is ironically at times a little too biased in its examples without proper argumentation or exploration of their own views, which gives the author a slightly arrogant and unseeming style of writing in my opinion. In addition, as other reviewers have remarked, the book is probably not a good stand alone introduction to logic or deductive reasoning. The first few chapters are dedicated to building written arguments but they come off a little superficial and too short to create enough of an impression in the reader to retain the information. However, if you need some refreshing of your knowledge of logic and argumentation and a small and easy book to navigate, this might be your book. I found it pretty useful as a rulebook and will probably revisit sections of it every once in a while.
I have a Master's degree in Applied Philosophy and I bought this book because I wanted a neat little book to remind me of the basics in logic and deductive reasoning. For this purpose, the book is brilliant. The different sections of the book are short and concise. There is an appendix with examples of logical fallacies in the back. However, the text is ironically at times a little too biased in its examples without proper argumentation or exploration of their own views, which gives the author a slightly arrogant and unseeming style of writing in my opinion. In addition, as other reviewers have remarked, the book is probably not a good stand alone introduction to logic or deductive reasoning. The first few chapters are dedicated to building written arguments but they come off a little superficial and too short to create enough of an impression in the reader to retain the information. However, if you need some refreshing of your knowledge of logic and argumentation and a small and easy book to navigate, this might be your book. I found it pretty useful as a rulebook and will probably revisit sections of it every once in a while.
February 13, 2012
This 85pg book accomplished much of its aim: to be the Elements of Style for Logic. Now in its 4th Ed., the author has refined and expanded the layout so that it reads straight through as well as piecemeal. The author's examples seem to indicate a non-Christian bias at times, but I don't think this detracts from the quality of the instruction given. The expansions in this edition address giving oral and written arguments as well as a section on informal fallacies. This is no end-all discussions book, but I recommend it to the library of anyone who will be presenting positions for adoption and evaluating others who do the same.
September 3, 2017
I took some notes. And while I expected those notes to go into my speech and debate notebook, I found they better fit in my journal/philosophical thoughts notebook. The book basically explains what's acceptable in an argument and what's not and how that argument should be structured. It also explains types of deductive arguments (which I got a brief introduction to through CrashCourse Philosophy, but this book goes into a lot more detail).
Arguments and debates might actually be productive if people abided by the rules presented in this rulebook. I wish the people on facebook with whom I have nonsensical political and religious arguments would read this.
Arguments and debates might actually be productive if people abided by the rules presented in this rulebook. I wish the people on facebook with whom I have nonsensical political and religious arguments would read this.
April 12, 2023
Es un libro muy práctico para aprender las bases de la argumentación, cómo se conforma una premisa, cuáles son los aspectos que hayq ue considerar para que esté formulada de manera correcta y cómo llevar eso a mayor escala en trabajos argumentativos. Una lectura muy útil para estudiantes y tesistas. Desearía haberlo encontrado antes en mi vida académica, me habría hecho la vida más fácil. Para quien tenga conocimientos de lógica informal probablemente le parecerá muy básico, pero para quien no es un excelente manual y obra de consulta.
April 7, 2008
wow a lot of these logic concepts sound like spells from Harry Potter.
Reductio ad absurdum!
Seriously, a must read for everyone.
Reductio ad absurdum!
Seriously, a must read for everyone.
October 6, 2017
Short with a good overview over the most important topics regarding argumentation.
February 29, 2024
Painstakingly obvious. Rarely insightful. Most of the examples trotted out are just plain wacky.
September 13, 2024
Llegué a este libro a través de la recomendación del filósofo español Javier Sádaba en el podcast de La luz del pasillo. En concreto, tengo la 10ª edición (2005), así que espero que las estructuras fundamentales de la argumentación no hayan cambiado más en 20 años que en 25 siglos.
Este es un libro de lógica informal o pensamiento crítico, que está tan de moda en la actualidad, con la peculiaridad de que es un libro de consulta. Es decir, no argumenta en profundidad por qué debemos tener pensamiento crítico, sino que prescribe distintas reglas para construir argumentos, tanto qué hacer y qué evitar. Simplificándolo todavía más que en el libro, la argumentación se reduce a llegar a unas conclusiones de una forma intelectualmente constructiva. Este libro es, por tanto, una sistematización de la humildad del pensamiento. Como dice Weston"no es un error tener conclusiones. El error es no tener nada más".
Lo bueno de este libro es que, por un lado, tiene una lectura directa que desarrolla una coherencia interna sólida, y, por otro lado, delimita muy bien las reglas a seguir para argumentar correctamente. Se lee muy fácil y tiene muchos ejemplos prácticos ilustrativos de lo que está hablando. Al mismo tiempo, separa los tipos de argumentación con sus reglas, los tipos de falacia y la definición de conceptos de forma que se pueden leer por separado cuando se necesite sin problema.
Su alcance le limita mucho los horizontes filosóficos del propio libro. Apenas se acerca a lo que para mí es uno de los problemas fundamentales del pensamiento que sentenció Hume: correlación no implica causalidad. A partir de ahí, podemos construir castillos de naipes y hacer ejercicios muy enriquecedores, pero no permite la forma de llegar a la Verdad al estilo platónico. Aunque el libro se enfoca en la lógica y el razonamiento, se presta poca atención a la dimensión emocional y retórica de los argumentos, que también son importantes en la persuasión y el discurso público, especialmente en la era posmoderna en que se dice que vivimos. No nos habla de los límites de ciencia y religión como campos de juego del saber (quien quiera profundizar en esto no puedo dejar de señalar el podcast de Por el amor de Higgs, de Javier Santaolalla y Enric F. Gel). No se menciona la navaja de Ockham (en igualdad de condiciones, la explicación más sencilla es la que se debe escoger), que aunque no fuera de Ockham, creo que suma bastante a la narrativa y no es difícil ni extensa de explicar. Mucho menos veremos otros principios de la racionalidad como los principios de no contradicción, de identidad o de consistencia.
Al final, no deja de ser un libro básico de lógica, y eso está bien. "No cerque más tierra de la que pueda arar", nos dice el autor de cara a nuestros argumentos. Está lejos de representar avances en este campo como los que se concibieron en los siglos XIX y XX, y ese no es su objetivo. Su objetivo es que se razone bien, algo que se echa mucho de menos en las calles, en los parlamentos y, sorprendemente, en la academia.
Espero que este libro afecte a la calidad de mis reseñas, porque cometen más de un pecado capital para la lógica informal.
Un libro de consulta que no permitiré que acumule polvo, parafraseando al autor.
Este es un libro de lógica informal o pensamiento crítico, que está tan de moda en la actualidad, con la peculiaridad de que es un libro de consulta. Es decir, no argumenta en profundidad por qué debemos tener pensamiento crítico, sino que prescribe distintas reglas para construir argumentos, tanto qué hacer y qué evitar. Simplificándolo todavía más que en el libro, la argumentación se reduce a llegar a unas conclusiones de una forma intelectualmente constructiva. Este libro es, por tanto, una sistematización de la humildad del pensamiento. Como dice Weston"no es un error tener conclusiones. El error es no tener nada más".
Lo bueno de este libro es que, por un lado, tiene una lectura directa que desarrolla una coherencia interna sólida, y, por otro lado, delimita muy bien las reglas a seguir para argumentar correctamente. Se lee muy fácil y tiene muchos ejemplos prácticos ilustrativos de lo que está hablando. Al mismo tiempo, separa los tipos de argumentación con sus reglas, los tipos de falacia y la definición de conceptos de forma que se pueden leer por separado cuando se necesite sin problema.
Su alcance le limita mucho los horizontes filosóficos del propio libro. Apenas se acerca a lo que para mí es uno de los problemas fundamentales del pensamiento que sentenció Hume: correlación no implica causalidad. A partir de ahí, podemos construir castillos de naipes y hacer ejercicios muy enriquecedores, pero no permite la forma de llegar a la Verdad al estilo platónico. Aunque el libro se enfoca en la lógica y el razonamiento, se presta poca atención a la dimensión emocional y retórica de los argumentos, que también son importantes en la persuasión y el discurso público, especialmente en la era posmoderna en que se dice que vivimos. No nos habla de los límites de ciencia y religión como campos de juego del saber (quien quiera profundizar en esto no puedo dejar de señalar el podcast de Por el amor de Higgs, de Javier Santaolalla y Enric F. Gel). No se menciona la navaja de Ockham (en igualdad de condiciones, la explicación más sencilla es la que se debe escoger), que aunque no fuera de Ockham, creo que suma bastante a la narrativa y no es difícil ni extensa de explicar. Mucho menos veremos otros principios de la racionalidad como los principios de no contradicción, de identidad o de consistencia.
Al final, no deja de ser un libro básico de lógica, y eso está bien. "No cerque más tierra de la que pueda arar", nos dice el autor de cara a nuestros argumentos. Está lejos de representar avances en este campo como los que se concibieron en los siglos XIX y XX, y ese no es su objetivo. Su objetivo es que se razone bien, algo que se echa mucho de menos en las calles, en los parlamentos y, sorprendemente, en la academia.
Espero que este libro afecte a la calidad de mis reseñas, porque cometen más de un pecado capital para la lógica informal.
Un libro de consulta que no permitiré que acumule polvo, parafraseando al autor.
February 22, 2023
For a long time I had an aversion for non-fiction but I guess the perspective changes as you get older. Reading a lot of fiction across categories also helps and you get that itch to try something new. Being a short read also helps reduce friction.
This is an excellent introduction to argumentative writing and speaking. Though full disclosure, since I haven't read any such book before I do not have a reference to compare it with. The book is short and you might complete it in 2-3 hours. Very readable. And makes a lot of sense. I would definitely think it would help any kids in school to write better as well perform better in debates or group discussions. (I would definitely recommended some choice chapters pointedly to Malcolm Gladwell, the author of David and Goliath). Though as the author states, it is a rulebook and hence very short. It does not go into much details or present a lot of examples.
As a software engineer, I can still apply a couple of things while arguing for a design choice in formal design documents used for review.
This is an excellent introduction to argumentative writing and speaking. Though full disclosure, since I haven't read any such book before I do not have a reference to compare it with. The book is short and you might complete it in 2-3 hours. Very readable. And makes a lot of sense. I would definitely think it would help any kids in school to write better as well perform better in debates or group discussions. (I would definitely recommended some choice chapters pointedly to Malcolm Gladwell, the author of David and Goliath). Though as the author states, it is a rulebook and hence very short. It does not go into much details or present a lot of examples.
As a software engineer, I can still apply a couple of things while arguing for a design choice in formal design documents used for review.
July 18, 2022
I read this book a year ago
Well, For a book about "Logic"
it's quite summarized
the Content is rich
yet in order to be very concise the presentation was poor to the point you will need to reread many points (or the entire book) to grasp the whole picture
The book also tried to teach a method to build Valid arguments and didn't stop at the point of spotting and criticising bad arguments which is a fresh take
Shortly the book has a sufficient material yet disruptively vague
Well, For a book about "Logic"
it's quite summarized
the Content is rich
yet in order to be very concise the presentation was poor to the point you will need to reread many points (or the entire book) to grasp the whole picture
The book also tried to teach a method to build Valid arguments and didn't stop at the point of spotting and criticising bad arguments which is a fresh take
Shortly the book has a sufficient material yet disruptively vague
January 10, 2019
Here is a short, clearly written guide to basic reasoning and logic. This is 100 pages, so don't expect anything exhaustive. It will give people a taste of rational thinking, how to go about making arguments, and what kinds of things to avoid. I would be happy if every college student read this. For what it is, I give it four stars.
April 11, 2021
This was the text book for my philosophy class. Over all it’s great for its intended purpose. It will be great to reference again as needed. The only knock is that it’s not written from a Biblical worldview, so some of their examples make the arguments self defeating. I just eat the meat and spit out the bone.
June 29, 2021
I dont understand why people write books theoretically "designed" for bringing clarity .. and they focus more on rhetoric and generalizations rather than clear examples / analogies to drive the point across.
im really disappointed by the validation of this type of work.. to me it leads to the opposite result.
im really disappointed by the validation of this type of work.. to me it leads to the opposite result.
July 19, 2021
Uni wanted me to read this.
Nicely written book, however, most of the "rules" were things that could either be learnt by taking philosophy in secondary school or common sense. It was quite short so I didn't mind reading it I just don't think it's thaaaat revolutionary what Weston teaches.
Nicely written book, however, most of the "rules" were things that could either be learnt by taking philosophy in secondary school or common sense. It was quite short so I didn't mind reading it I just don't think it's thaaaat revolutionary what Weston teaches.
February 22, 2018
Concise and very well presented. Flows as nicely as possible. Sort of left me wanting more by the time it went into the more practical sections that were less interesting (Argumentative Essay and Speech).
September 19, 2019
I think everyone should have this in their home. If you are completely new to logical arguments and critical thinking it will teach you a lot; if you are already experienced in these areas, it will serve you as a good brief reference guide.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.