I found this book to be very logical, well laid out, and interesting. I had no problem reading through this book. In fact it was a breeze reading and I am now interested in reading more of the author's books on logic and argumentation. I would like to add that this is the first book on logic I have read. Additionally I found the information in the book to be very practicable/easy to put into use. I find myself unconsciously using techniques, from this book, for critical evaluation to criticize and evaluate the arguments used by others, and using the techniques for promoting open dialogue at work and in my other day to day interactions.
I think this book would be great to read in high school, though I am not implying it is "high school level" material. I highly recommend this book to anyone.
Author(s): Douglas Walton
Edition: 2
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 2008
Language: English
Pages: 367
Cover......Page 1
Half-title......Page 3
Title......Page 5
Copyright......Page 6
Dedication......Page 7
Contents......Page 9
Preface......Page 13
Acknowledgments......Page 17
Informal Logic......Page 19
1 Argument as reasoned dialogue......Page 21
1.1 Types of Argumentative Dialogue......Page 23
1.2 Components of Argumentative Dialogue......Page 28
1.3 Persuasion Dialogue (Critical Discussion)......Page 30
1.4 Negative Rules of Persuasion Dialogue......Page 35
1.5 Some Major Informal Fallacies......Page 38
1.6 The Straw Man Fallacy......Page 42
1.7 Argument from Consequences......Page 44
1.8 The Critical Perspective......Page 54
2 Questions and answers in dialogue......Page 58
2.1 Presuppositions of Questions......Page 59
2.2 Complex Questions......Page 62
2.3 Have You Stopped Abusing Your Spouse?......Page 66
2.4 Disjunctive Questions......Page 70
2.5 Arguments from Ignorance......Page 76
2.6 Replying to a Question with a Question......Page 81
2.7 Begging the Question......Page 84
2.8 Questions in Polls......Page 87
2.9 Advocacy and Push Polling......Page 91
2.10 Question-Answer Rules in Dialogue......Page 93
3 Criticisms of irrelevance......Page 98
3.1 Allegations of Irrelevance......Page 99
3.2 Global Irrelevance......Page 102
3.3 Question-Answer Relevance......Page 105
3.4 Setting an Agenda for a Discussion......Page 108
3.5 Red Herring versus Wrong Conclusion......Page 112
3.6 Varieties of Criticisms of Irrelevance......Page 119
3.7 Summary......Page 122
4 Appeals to emotion......Page 126
4.1 Argumentum AD Populum......Page 127
4.2 The Argument from Popularity......Page 131
4.3 Problems with Appeals to Popularity......Page 134
4.4 Threatening Appeals to Force......Page 137
4.5 Further AD BACULUM Problems......Page 144
4.6 Appeals to Pity......Page 148
4.7 Overt, Pictorial Appeals to Pity......Page 150
4.8 Summary......Page 153
5 Valid arguments......Page 156
5.1 Deductive Validity......Page 157
5.2 Identifying Arguments......Page 158
5.3 Validity as a Semantic Concept......Page 162
5.4 Valid Forms of Argument......Page 164
5.5 Invalid Arguments......Page 169
5.6 Inconsistency......Page 172
5.7 Composition and Division......Page 176
5.8 Defeasible Reasoning......Page 179
5.9 Jumping to a Conclusion......Page 182
5.10 Summary......Page 186
6
Personal attack in argumentation......Page 190
6.1 The Abusive Ad Hominem Argument......Page 191
6.2 The Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument......Page 197
6.3 The Attack on an Arguer's Impartiality......Page 205
6.4 Non-Fallacious Ad Hominem Arguments......Page 210
6.5 Replying to a Personal Attack......Page 214
6.6 Critical Questions for an Ad Hominem Argument......Page 218
6.7 Important Types of Error to Check......Page 221
6.8 Some Cases for Further Discussion......Page 223
7 Appeals to authority......Page 229
7.1 Reasonable Appeals to Authority......Page 231
7.2 Argumentation Scheme for Appeal to Expert Opinion......Page 235
7.3 Critical Questions for the Appeal to Expert Opinion......Page 237
7.4 Three Common Errors in Citing Expert Opinions......Page 243
7.5 Evaluating Appeals to Expert Opinion in Written Sources......Page 245
7.6 Expert Testimony in Legal Argumentation......Page 249
7.7 How Expert Is the Authority?......Page 252
7.8 Interpreting What the Expert Said......Page 257
7.9 A Balanced View of Argument from Expert Opinion......Page 261
8 Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies......Page 266
8.1 Meaningless and Unknowable Statistics......Page 267
8.2 Sampling Procedures......Page 271
8.3 Insufficient and Biased Statistics......Page 274
8.4 Questionable Questions and Definitions......Page 276
8.5 The Post Hoc Argument......Page 279
8.6 Six Kinds of Post Hoc Errors......Page 283
8.7 Bias Due to Defining Variables......Page 290
8.8 Post Hoc Criticisms as Raising Critical Questions in an Inquiry......Page 292
8.9 Strengthening Causal Arguments by Answering Critical Questions......Page 295
8.10 Examples of Drawing Causal Conclusions from Scientific Studies......Page 299
8.11 Summary......Page 305
9 Natural language argumentation......Page 309
9.1 Ambiguity and Vagueness......Page 310
9.2 Loaded Terms and Question-Begging Language......Page 314
9.3 Equivocation and Amphiboly......Page 320
9.4 Arguments Based on Analogy......Page 325
9.5 Argumentative Use of Analogy......Page 328
9.6 Criticizing Arguments from Analogy......Page 332
9.7 Slippery Slope Arguments......Page 335
9.8 Subtle Equivocations......Page 341
9.9 Variability of Strictness of Standards......Page 345
9.10 Conclusions......Page 348
Bibliography......Page 353
Index......Page 359
