Title: Bland, Unorganized
Product review: I made a too-light decision to use this text for an informal logic part of an Introduction to Philosophy class. I thought, "Aren't all informal logic texts basically the same?" I hope that they aren't, because then they would all be like this one. There is no coherent organizational scheme. There are chapters with titles like "Incorrect Inference" -- which is to say, fallacies, which is the alleged topic of the entire book, and hence can hardly be set aside from the rest of the book. The lists of bad uses and fallacies are run together more or less at random. Some of the examples of fallacies aren't examples of fallacies, but the sort of thing that looks sort of like a fallacy but isn't. The examples are, in almost every case, wooden and unbelievable. And the writing is bland and dull. I regret the choice of text and can fairly strongly recommend that others avoid it.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
