Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. Robert J. Fogelin. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Pp. + xii. 1) Statement of. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic and Copi and text but have come across this textbook in PDF format, please do not hesitate to. Understanding Arguments book. Read 13 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. The proven strengths of this argument text include the phil .
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||22.68 MB|
|PDF File Size:||9.84 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Understanding. Arguments. An Introduction to Informal Logic. NINTH EDITION. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Duke University. Robert J. Fogelin. Dartmouth College. Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: An. Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments, Concise. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic,. Eighth Edition. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and. Robert J. Fogelin. Publisher/Executive Editor: Clark.
History[ edit ] This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. August Learn how and when to remove this template message Informal logic as a distinguished enterprise under this name emerged roughly in the late s as a sub-field of philosophy. The naming of the field was preceded by the appearance of a number of textbooks that rejected the symbolic approach to logic on pedagogical grounds as inappropriate and unhelpful for introductory textbooks on logic for a general audience, for example Howard Kahane 's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, subtitled "The Use of Reason in Everyday Life", first published in Kahane's textbook was described on the notice of his death in the Proceedings And Addresses of the American Philosophical Association as "a text in informal logic, [that] was intended to enable students to cope with the misleading rhetoric one frequently finds in the media and in political discourse. It was organized around a discussion of fallacies, and was meant to be a practical instrument for dealing with the problems of everyday life.
Showing Rating details. Sort order. Sep 03, AZ ZA marked it as to-read. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue https: At times abstract, but on the whole easy to understand.
Having case examples help immensely. The best part of the book is part five "Areas of Argumentation": Some of which is rather detailed and complex, but nevertheless worth the effort. Most interesting is the chapter on scientific reasoning in which convincing arguments are given that natural selection is not entirely true, that not all changes come from evolution but from des At times abstract, but on the whole easy to understand.
Most interesting is the chapter on scientific reasoning in which convincing arguments are given that natural selection is not entirely true, that not all changes come from evolution but from design not necessarily from "intelligent design".
Sep 15, Amal Shoeib rated it it was ok. Well, The book honestly didn't fulfil my prophecy that It would teach me how to win arguments and to squash people with my strong argumentative claims. Howeve, it taught me that I should never waste my time on invalid o trivial arguments which are petty much most of the arguments going on nowadays.
There are usually many fallacies in the premises people usually use to defend their point and I would never recognize them if it wasn't for this book.
At some point the book was really childish, but I Well, The book honestly didn't fulfil my prophecy that It would teach me how to win arguments and to squash people with my strong argumentative claims. At some point the book was really childish, but I survived. Dec 10, Denise rated it liked it Shelves: Reading this for an online refresher course in critical thinking. Some chapters can be found for free via google books.
A terrible mash up of poor grammar and poor logic passed off as a study in Rhetoric. Read Plato instead. View 2 comments. Aug 21, Rhi rated it really liked it. Bogen er grundbog for fire coursera-kurser.
As I didn't read it for my pleasure I can't give more than just "liked it" but anyway, I liked it. Pretty easy to get. And the only problem for me is that the book doesn't contain key to the exercises.
Nov 29, Maya rated it liked it Shelves: What task or tasks are arguments supposed to perform? When an approach to arguments has this form, the study is called informal logic. As its subtitle indicates, Understanding Arguments is primarily a text in informal logic. The Web of Language 2. The Language of Argument 3. The Art of Close Analysis 4.
Fallacies of Clarity and Relevance 5. Other Uses of Argument 6. That is, they are ways of someone' s trying to shield his or her position against criticism. His procedure involves making notations using a set of abbreviations in the margins of the argument. In Chapter 8, for example, the issues dealt with are Safety in Nuclear Power Plants with various illustrative materials; and Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination Generally these chapters are about thirty pages long with several long passages of reasoning presented as specimens.
It attempts to help its readers think out their own ideas and those of others.
Courses at a Glance: All four courses in this series are offered through sessions which run every four weeks. We suggest sticking to the weekly schedule to the best of your ability. If for whatever reason you fall behind, feel free to re-enroll in the next session. We also suggest that you start each course close to the beginning of a month in order to increase the number of peers in the discussion forums who are working on the same material as you are.
While each course can be taken independently, we suggest you take the four courses in order. Which parts of what they say contribute to the argument? Why are they arguing instead of fighting?