Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking

Good, But There are Better:
Buy A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston instead of this book. Reasons are below. Both Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking by D.Q. Mcinerny (this book), and A Rulebook for Arguments, by Anthony Weston site the same exact book as their inspiration. Both books are of similar structure, focused on the topic of logic. They both reference The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. (and E. B. White) as their source of inspiration. As a result, both books attempt to be a short book, easy to read, with the goal of explaining the basic rules of logic to anyone. This book only meets two of the three goals. The other meets all three. This book is short, and does review the basic rules of logic and critical thinking. However, while someone can breeze through A Rulebook for Arguments with almost no effort, this book (Being Logical) is a bit tough to read at times by comparison. For example, there is a passage in Negative Statements section of the Language of Logic chapter where the author spends a paragraph or two concluding that it is always clearer to your audience to use the positive phrasing of a statement whenever possible. The very next paragraph begins with an unnecessary use of a negative statement (middle of page 54). Not only does it dawn on the reader that the author violated their own rule, but the book is full of language that is slightly more complex than it needs to be. Some of the examples that use science can bother someone with a science background. The author occasionally trys to emphasize how concrete something can be by using a "hard science" as an example. When doing so it became even more mixed up. In one passage the author used molecules and elements as though they were interchangeable terms with identical meaning. If you don't know, maybe it doesn't bother you that molecules are composed of the elements, in a higher more ordered complex structure, and the terms don't have the same meaning. The point of logic trying to be made was still there, but it just got muddied a bit when you get bogged down in "huh? but..."

Well-written but very simple:
This book is a well-written beginner's introduction to logic. If you are already familiar with the foundations of logic or ethical reasoning I doubt you'll find anything new in the book. I stopped reading it about halfway through because it was so simple, but it would be a good book for someone new to the subject.

logic!:
--Most of us fail to be logical all the time, or even most of the time. This book can help you be critical not only of the failures in logic committed by others, but also those shortcomings to which we are all most prone. An easy book to read, and a helpful book to put into practice. Would that all the world could become just a little more logical....

Good, brief introduction to rhetorical logic:
Sound reasoning stands out, possibly because so few role models demonstrate it these days. McInerny's book offers a solid introduction to strong reasoning, without intimidating notation and without talking down to the reader. The book's five chapters offer an introduction, two sections on strong reasoning, and two section on illogical thought. Beginning with basics, like having the facts straight and using the right words to say them, he develops healthy habits of thought and inference. Of course, this means avoiding common problems in misuse of the rules of logic, which he patiently explains. A logical speaker must also be a logical listener, as well. In part, that means defending oneself against illogic (and ill logic) of many kinds, so McInerny presents a fair sampling of common errors, with the goal of training the reader to identify and defuse them. This book addresses readers at an introductory level. It presents basic, true/false kinds of logic, without the pain of mathematical formalism. As a result, advanced readers will find it simplistic. It simply does not address soft or multi-valued logics, possibilitic reasoning, and other advanced concepts - a reasonable choice for the author, but one that I'm not wholly comfortable with. And, in some very few places, I disagree with the presentation. He analyzes the sentence "All dogs are not mongrels," for example, which I would paraphrase as "No dog is a mongrel." He interprets that sentence to mean "Some dogs are not mongrels," which allows the possibility that some are. A nuance, perhaps, but logic is about precise meanings. "All are not" denotes something different from "Not all are." I agree with other of his statements whole-heartedly, though. One truly stood out for me: "If you do not regard a position that you publicly advocate, and are willing to defend in argument, as true, you are abusing reason." This undermines large parts of a lawyer's professional training and skill - not a bad thing, I think. Despite occasional glitches, I recommend this to readers just learning to present their ideas soundly. It might work well for a high-schooler or college freshman. Sound reasoning works well for everyone though, especially as a defense against the unsound reasoning so dismally common today. -- wiredweird

A decent, concise introduction:
This is a decent refresher on formal (and not so formal) logic, for anyone who took a logic class so many years ago. Or for those who didn't, it's a good introduction. It's modeled more or less on Strunk and White, so it's concise (maybe a bit too much), and it's not very technical. It doesn't cover all the bases, e.g. there's nothing on truth trees, but it does a good job with the fundamentals, including the more common fallacies. Someone (maybe this author) said something to the effect that logic is the most neglected subject in US schools today and the most in need of being returned to a central place in the curriculum. If that's not precisely true, it must be pretty close. Just look at what passes for political debate these days, and the fact that almost no one cares that candidates don't actually use premises, don't bother with valid arguments, don't make rational connections, and draw conclusions that can't possibly be supported. Sheesh .... Copies should be handed out with all birth certificates.