- Paperback: 310 pages
- Publisher: Cambridge University Press (28 July 1989)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0521379253
- ISBN-13: 978-0521379250
- Product Dimensions: 21.3 x 13.7 x 2 cm
- Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 707,726 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- See Complete Table of Contents
| ||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
|
There is a newer edition of this item:
|
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
'The book's unique philosophic thrust under the rubric 'logical pragmatics' renders it quite suitable as a text for an introduction to philosophy course. When I have the occasion to teach informal logic again, Walton's book will definitely replace the one I have been using. In a word, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation is the best book in the field I have come across in recent years.' Teaching Philosophy
Product Description
This is an introductory guidebook to the basic principles of how to construct good arguments and how to criticeze bad ones. It is non-technical in its approach and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. Professor Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses. Among the many subjects covered are: forms of valid argument, relevance, appeals to emotion, personal attack, uses and abuses of expert opinion, problems in deploying statistics, loading terms, equivocation, arguments from analogy, and techniques of posing, replying to, and criticizing questions. The book will be ideally suited to courses in informal logic and in the introduction to philosophy. It will also prove valuable to studetns of pragmatics, rhetoric, and speech communication.
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Walton starts at the very beginning and takes the reader on a fascinating -- if rather academic -- tour of the structure and devices of critical argumentation. The book is well-structured but not as concise as I'd have liked. Examples are sprinkled liberally throughout, making accessible what could potentially have been a very dry textbook.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
12 reviews
24 of 25 people found the following review helpful
Don't You Agree That No Right Thinking Person Would Find Fault With This Book?
13 Mar 2006
Format:Paperback
The title is an example of overly aggressive questioning and a fallacious attempt to end debate by labeling anyone who disagrees a dunce. In a courtroom the question would be disallowed on the legal grounds that it is argumentative. In the newsroom, the boardroom, and just about any other type of room where people gather to discuss issues, that type of question is asked every day.
Walton clearly (but ponderously) explains why questions of this type (and questions and arguments of many other types) are just plain wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. He not only explains why they're wrong, unlike other books on informal logic that I've read, he gives advice on how to answer them.
As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end.
Walton does tend to beat a dead horse, however. Although repetition is the surest method of teaching, as a rule of thumb, three repetitions of a point should suffice.
One other minor quibble. He is occasionally guilty of faulty analysis himself. In analyzing the hunter/anti-hunter debate, he said that the hunter's reply about meat eaters being in a poor position to criticize hunting was a weak argument. He found very little parallel between slaughtering innocent wild animals and eating hamburgers. The parallel is this: The objective of hunting is to eat what you kill. (If you're not dedicated to this proposition, stay out of the woods). In order to eat the hamburger, somebody has to slaughter the innocent cow for you. The difference between the hamburger eating anti-hunter and the venison eating hunter is who killed the food and whether they did it for sport or a paycheck.
Walton clearly (but ponderously) explains why questions of this type (and questions and arguments of many other types) are just plain wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. He not only explains why they're wrong, unlike other books on informal logic that I've read, he gives advice on how to answer them.
As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end.
Walton does tend to beat a dead horse, however. Although repetition is the surest method of teaching, as a rule of thumb, three repetitions of a point should suffice.
One other minor quibble. He is occasionally guilty of faulty analysis himself. In analyzing the hunter/anti-hunter debate, he said that the hunter's reply about meat eaters being in a poor position to criticize hunting was a weak argument. He found very little parallel between slaughtering innocent wild animals and eating hamburgers. The parallel is this: The objective of hunting is to eat what you kill. (If you're not dedicated to this proposition, stay out of the woods). In order to eat the hamburger, somebody has to slaughter the innocent cow for you. The difference between the hamburger eating anti-hunter and the venison eating hunter is who killed the food and whether they did it for sport or a paycheck.
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Good for GMAT preparation
9 Sep 2000
Format:Paperback
As a non-native English speaker, I had a hard time to improve my score in GMAT critial reasoning section. By accident, I found the "Informal logic" category in Amazon and ordered 6 books. After reading all 6 books, I found this book was the easiest to read and the clearest to understand the basic reasoning steps that GMAT asks in the test. Also, in general, this book is helpful for people who study English.
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Excellent as a starting point
5 Jan 1998
Format:Paperback
Informal Logic exposes the reader to a formal analysis of their everyday thought. You will be able to use the material to recognize (and respond properly to) types of arguments and fallacies that previously had gone unrecognized. If you would like to become better at arguing your point, this is a good starting point.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
