Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic Paperback – June 21, 2016

I love this book. I would recommend it for anyone who wants a good solid introduction to spotting logical fallacies, especially in these politically fraught times. Small and easy to read but covers the basics and then some. If I ever needed to teach a logic class, I would use this as the basic textbook.

If critical thinking shapes the bones of successful communication, logic is the chemical structure those bones fundamentally consist of. This book is intended to help people build a framework of critical thinking which is not given to crumbling. It is the first broad overview of the topic aimed at bringing logic into commonplace communication I have come across. In parallel, it aims to prepare readers for communication in settings which are formal and or impartial (a subset of everyday communication). This review assesses the book according to these goals.Logical arguments are a formal look at specific types of reasons and their relationships with proposed conclusions, not "he said, she said" arguments. The scope of the book is kept to logical argument types which are most often incorrect (known as fallacies); when they are applicable; how to process them; and how to effectively respond when others utilize them. Inherent to this discussion is how to avoid these when they are not applicable.In language, the book is very accessible to anyone of a curious mind. In dealing with each fallacy, the book does a fantastic job of preparing the reader for further exposure and reading. Because of this, the book should be of great use for anyone in or out of college and high school--or lower--who engages in public speaking or debate.In the broader goal of critical thinking, the book is supplementary. While the book is excellent in providing a foundation in practical logic, those seeking to improve their critical thinking skills would benefit from accessing additional materials. And, of course, putting them to use! Critical thinking is a practical skill best honed in actual use--whether interpreting a newspaper article's significance, or presenting a proposal to your boss or customer (the latter two with prior practice, hopefully). Keeping these points in mind, I do recommend this book for those seeking to improve their critical thinking skills.I suggest a second section, or companion text, of somewhat similar length could guide critical thinking more broadly. If, as I here suggest, critical thinking were broadly treated with the excellence the book treats fallacies with, this book / hypothetical set would be closer to indispensable.In structure, the book 1) presents each fallacy and its structure (including whether formal or informal), 2) defines it, 3) provides a quick conceptual example, 4) a real-life example, 5) discusses why and or when it is wrong/right, 6) presents solutions to the fallacy and discusses their effectiveness, and 7) discusses what meaning/significance/use this fallacy has in communication. Throughout, the kindle edition touches on related fallacies and provides links to the relevant entries. To give you an idea of the length of each entry, the print version is represented as 200 pages long, and I count 61 fallacies / variants.If you navigated this review with ease, then you should have no problem navigating the book with ease.On critical thinking; from the Foundation For Critical Thinking--which also invokes Socrates:"Why Critical Thinking?The ProblemEveryone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.A DefinitionCritical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. "

Albeit this is not perfect, it's ideal. The structure & simplistic format of the fallacies allow for convenient customization from the reader--the illustrations are engaging too.

For obvious reasons, I've been thinking a lot about logical fallacies over the past few years and wanting to raise kids who know how to spot and avoid them. I looked at reviews and previews for a number of books aimed at kids but none of them seemed great -- either they were too complicated, or they had cute Calvin & Hobbes cartoons but made too many sexist jokes. This book is clear and simple, printed in an inviting font and format. Each fallacy gets a few pages. There's an example for one, then a case from literature or real life, then a clear explanation and a suggested rebuttal. We got the book yesterday and my oldest kid, a 10-year-old, hasn't put it down. He read it all evening up till bedtime and took it with him to school this morning. It's fun to hear him instinctively making up his own versions of the fallacies as he reads and digests them: "Mom, this pillow scares away rhinos. See -- there are no rhinos in this room! That proves it." It's a helpful guide for adults, too!

I started out liking Michael Whitney’s book a lot. I thought the layout made sense, where after the chapter title, the author would present the logic statement (i.e., Person A makes claim P; person B states that A has a bad character; therefore, P is false). This is followed by a layman’s definition: Attacking a speaker’s argument by insulting the speaker. An example followed by a real-life example furnish more knowledge, and the author then demonstrates the mistake and shares the solution, or Comeback.As I continued to read, I began to notice pattern that I felt did not belong in this type of book, and thus it became irritating. Political examples filtered in, and every example was a slam toward one of the American political parties. Here are a couple examples:Trump’s “…wild denunciations of Washington, the media, immigrants, Muslims and other sundry figures, despite rendering him a figure of ridicule in the mainstream media, have been instrumental in the success of his presidential campaign.” This example of Appeal to Anger demonstrates the author’s contradiction in the very next argument he presents, Appeal to Authority. The author presents Trump as a figure or ridicule by presenting the mainstream media as an authority, and ignores the fact that a majority of people were not angry, but voted for Trump because he made sense to them. The mainstream media also presented the polls that said Trump would lose, which to me causes the mainstream media to lose credibility. Let’s try another…We all know that numbers can be twisted to make them work for an argument, whether it is made by the Democrats or the Republicans. The author’s example for Appeal to Desperation, which was the 2012 Republicans proposal to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to try to stem the rising deficit, is refuted by Paul Krugman, noted for his economic views which run counter to Republican views, thus providing a slanted outlook that will obviously back up the author’s point. If you’re going to set up an example in a book claiming to rebuke logical fallacies, I would suggest finding credible examples that don’t make the author appear to be grinding a political ax.Personally, I don’t care where the author’s political loyalties lie, but I didn’t purchase this book to learn his views on the current system in America today. I wanted to study logical fallacies, not detour around snarky political comments. At other times, religious views were used as examples. It is not a question of whether these were the best examples that could be found, and I am sure there were reliable examples that could have been substituted. Instead, my question is why use examples that are guaranteed to rile your potential customer base? To me, THAT isn’t logical.So – decent book if you don’t mind the periodic digs at religion and conservative thought. Three stars.