counter create hit Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic

Availability: Ready to download

***LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE*** Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic—and that with the right skills you could have won the argument. The ability to recognize logical fallaci ***LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE*** Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic—and that with the right skills you could have won the argument. The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essential life skill. Mastering Logical Fallacies is the clearest, boldest, and most systematic guide to dominating the rules and tactics of successful arguments. This book offers methodical breakdowns of the logical fallacies behind exceedingly common, yet detrimental, argumentative mistakes, and explores them through real life examples of logic-gone-wrong. Designed for those who are ready to gain the upper hand over their opponents, this master class teaches the necessary skills to identify your opponents’ misuse of logic and construct effective, arguments that win. With the empowering strategies offered in Mastering Logical Fallacies you’ll be able to reveal the slight-of-hand flaws in your challengers’ rhetoric, and seize control of the argument with bulletproof logic.


Compare
Ads Banner

***LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE*** Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic—and that with the right skills you could have won the argument. The ability to recognize logical fallaci ***LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE*** Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic—and that with the right skills you could have won the argument. The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essential life skill. Mastering Logical Fallacies is the clearest, boldest, and most systematic guide to dominating the rules and tactics of successful arguments. This book offers methodical breakdowns of the logical fallacies behind exceedingly common, yet detrimental, argumentative mistakes, and explores them through real life examples of logic-gone-wrong. Designed for those who are ready to gain the upper hand over their opponents, this master class teaches the necessary skills to identify your opponents’ misuse of logic and construct effective, arguments that win. With the empowering strategies offered in Mastering Logical Fallacies you’ll be able to reveal the slight-of-hand flaws in your challengers’ rhetoric, and seize control of the argument with bulletproof logic.

30 review for Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic

  1. 5 out of 5

    Stephie Williams

    The book goes over a wide range of logical fallacies, or fallacies if not logical, are often found in people’s arguments. These fallacies are both formal or informal. All them can be counteracted in some manner. I would not call this a definitive guide. It does cover a good range of fallacies, but whether or not it covers them all I do not know. And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them, is too brief to be definitive as well. Somewhere he claims that The book goes over a wide range of logical fallacies, or fallacies if not logical, are often found in people’s arguments. These fallacies are both formal or informal. All them can be counteracted in some manner. I would not call this a definitive guide. It does cover a good range of fallacies, but whether or not it covers them all I do not know. And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them, is too brief to be definitive as well. Somewhere he claims that this is the only book you will need. To that I say “hardly.” I would be more comfortable with it being called a short guide. If you looking for a brief guide to fallacies that show up in arguments or debates, this is a pretty good one. If you are looking for something more definitive, you will need to look elsewhere.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Dee Arr

    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 C 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 an irritating pattern. 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 have the author 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 be 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.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Dan Graser

    Given the sheer amount of imprecision, anti-intellectualism, and pseudo-intellectualism prevalent in modern discourse, books like this are made all the more necessary. Withey has set up essentially an alphabetical list of common fallacies along with easy to understand examples and suggestions for how to avoid them, and, if confronted with said fallacy in a debate situation, how to counteract them. Although many of these specific fallacies are in fact just more specific cases of previous fallacie Given the sheer amount of imprecision, anti-intellectualism, and pseudo-intellectualism prevalent in modern discourse, books like this are made all the more necessary. Withey has set up essentially an alphabetical list of common fallacies along with easy to understand examples and suggestions for how to avoid them, and, if confronted with said fallacy in a debate situation, how to counteract them. Although many of these specific fallacies are in fact just more specific cases of previous fallacies explored, the prevalence of these highly specific nuggets of idiocy in contemporary conversation merits the attention Withey pays to them. This is a very quick and enjoyable read that will remain a great reference, upon being finished, for anyone seriously interested in maintaining some semblance of logical consistency in their utterances.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jay

    The author is obviously a lib. What's ironic is that he commits some of the fallacies himself while making his points.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Cee Davis

    This is a hard book to review because although it’s actually structured quite well and is rather concise, by the end of it your brain has nearly exploded with new information and you’re really just over it. Definitely one I’m glad I read though — I almost can’t wait to have an argument with someone just so I can spot their logical fallacies — but I’ll resist. I don’t want to be THAT person. I will be keeping it on the shelf for reference though.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Frany74

    Interesting and easy read, but not a lot of really useful information.

  7. 4 out of 5

    James Carter

    I read one book on logical fallacies before picking up Mastering Logical Fallacies. The set-up is pretty much the same: an encyclopedic list, albeit not comprehensive, of logical fallacies with its proper name, a scientific formula, an example, a real-life example, an explanation of where the mistake is, a comeback (sometimes the author would admit that trying to argue logically with an opponent when a mistake has been pointed out can be futile at times because he doesn't follow the rules of an I read one book on logical fallacies before picking up Mastering Logical Fallacies. The set-up is pretty much the same: an encyclopedic list, albeit not comprehensive, of logical fallacies with its proper name, a scientific formula, an example, a real-life example, an explanation of where the mistake is, a comeback (sometimes the author would admit that trying to argue logically with an opponent when a mistake has been pointed out can be futile at times because he doesn't follow the rules of an argument which is exactly my point that it doesn't work with uneducated people), and the significance. All in all, Mastering Logical Fallacies is just an okay book, but I can't remember very much afterwards.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Davis

    Like a catalog This book is less a treatise and more a catalog. Logical fallacies are listed and described in a couple of paragraphs with a couple more paragraphs on how to thwart them. After a few such examples, it becomes a tiresome read. There's no skill taught, so I must assume the book is intended as a reference. That being the case, one would do better to beat one's opponent with it than to try to best him with it.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Peter Van Bussel

    Great illustrations and examples! I feel as though this person debates a lot of religious people. Overall interesting read. A lot of it is common knowledge but it’s nice to have a title to the bad arguments

  10. 5 out of 5

    William Glick

    It’s a pretty basic book on logical fallacies. Honestly, you can get better explanations at a number of places for free on line. He contends at the beginning that this is some kind of complete work on the subject. It is far from that. He gives a basic and correct overview of common logical fallacies and adds very little. I guess I don’t like that he uses a lot of strawman arguments against his own political and social beliefs then uses these imaginary arguments to demonstrate the fallacy. That’s It’s a pretty basic book on logical fallacies. Honestly, you can get better explanations at a number of places for free on line. He contends at the beginning that this is some kind of complete work on the subject. It is far from that. He gives a basic and correct overview of common logical fallacies and adds very little. I guess I don’t like that he uses a lot of strawman arguments against his own political and social beliefs then uses these imaginary arguments to demonstrate the fallacy. That’s annoying, but tolerable and increasingly par for the course. But, what aggravated me most about this book is in his recommendations for countering fallacious arguments. Several times he suggests engaging in a fallacy similar to that of one’s opponent. That’s terrible advice. It sets your argument up to be rejected by both emotional and logical opposition. So, this isn’t a particularly scholarly work, it’s not an entertaining work, and it’s an awful source of general advice. Here’s an entertaining site that will basically cover everything in this book. http://www.ussmariner.com/2005/10/13/... Thanks,

  11. 5 out of 5

    Feng Ouyang

    This book is just a long list of logical fallacies, ranging from ones with theoretical values to trivial argumentative tricks. Some of them are repetitive. It is an interesting read, yet with little practical value. One cannot memorize all or most of the listed fallacies (with there Latin names) by reading the book. The fallacy list is not organized for easy search, either. The format for each fallacy is the description, followed by examples, then a very short discussion of what is wrong and wha This book is just a long list of logical fallacies, ranging from ones with theoretical values to trivial argumentative tricks. Some of them are repetitive. It is an interesting read, yet with little practical value. One cannot memorize all or most of the listed fallacies (with there Latin names) by reading the book. The fallacy list is not organized for easy search, either. The format for each fallacy is the description, followed by examples, then a very short discussion of what is wrong and what should be the comeback. While this is a sensible format in general, it was held too mechanically in the book. Some fallacies are elementary to understand and deal with once they are recognized. Others require more logical training to master. Yet others come with interesting stories or famous quotes. The book would be much more enjoyable if a more flexible format is adopted. The book could also use a more hieratical organization, where the fallacies are grouped by type or characteristics, with some introduction or explanation to each group. Overall, this is a book for fun rather than the “definitive guide” as advertised by the title.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Kaitlin Moore

    I started reading this book one evening and then just kind of forgot about it until recently. I picked it up again and devoured what was left. As I was reading for the second time I realized how much I gained from my first go. It would be next to impossible for the lay person to remember all these arguments, but what it has done for me is given me the ability to look at an argument and figure out for myself why it is flawed. Enormously useful in today's political climate. The book is well research I started reading this book one evening and then just kind of forgot about it until recently. I picked it up again and devoured what was left. As I was reading for the second time I realized how much I gained from my first go. It would be next to impossible for the lay person to remember all these arguments, but what it has done for me is given me the ability to look at an argument and figure out for myself why it is flawed. Enormously useful in today's political climate. The book is well researched and sectioned well. Each argument is put out for the logical brain "If x equals y then z equals q" kind of thing. Then it gives a hypothetical situation, a real life situation, explains the fallacy behind the argument and gives you tools to combat it. It's easy to ready, digestible, and would be an excellent resource to visit in the future. Well done.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Julien L

    It presents its content well - I learned a lot, and its structured in a way where it starts with the syllogistic language first and then moves into easier, concrete examples. In that respect the book did its job. As an English teacher, rhetoric has always been my weakest area, so it's nice to see things like fallacies presented in an accessible, easy-to-understand way. I only take one star off because its got some thinly veiled political attacks that are approached in a very haha, look how cleve It presents its content well - I learned a lot, and its structured in a way where it starts with the syllogistic language first and then moves into easier, concrete examples. In that respect the book did its job. As an English teacher, rhetoric has always been my weakest area, so it's nice to see things like fallacies presented in an accessible, easy-to-understand way. I only take one star off because its got some thinly veiled political attacks that are approached in a very haha, look how clever I am-way where he presents political bait under the veil of being informative. Still, the book 99% accomplishes its job (at least in my experience). I would use this to teach fallacies to my seniors.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Donna

    This book is boring. I persevered through 40% of it before speed-reading the rest to the end. Each of the arguments is laid out one by one in a way that makes you feel like you are reading a dictionary. Some of the examples given were vaguely interesting but will become completely irrelevant in a few years as it heavily borrows from what is current in the news right now. If you want very detailed technical examples of logical fallacies with lots of jargon then you might like it, but this book do This book is boring. I persevered through 40% of it before speed-reading the rest to the end. Each of the arguments is laid out one by one in a way that makes you feel like you are reading a dictionary. Some of the examples given were vaguely interesting but will become completely irrelevant in a few years as it heavily borrows from what is current in the news right now. If you want very detailed technical examples of logical fallacies with lots of jargon then you might like it, but this book doesn't relate to 'real life' very well and gets way too bogged down in academics.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Nikola Tchipev

    Important read for anyone. Thinking about the individual fallacies helped me identify instances where I've used some myself and where others have used some against me. Somewhat redundant at times, as there are some fallacies whose difference is difficult to spot. Some of the examples may be biased against conservative thought, but not much. I tend to be more conservative, but did not feel offended by them. Keep in mind that the book has a catalogue style.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Honeybeetle

    I wish I'd had this book back in school. Each fallacy is explained in plain English with examples. The tone is good-humored, which keeps the topic from being as dry as it's capable of being. I'd say this is a good introduction to the subject. It doesn't go very in depth, but you can move on to a book that does without getting lost.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Ali Kutluozen

    Very useful yet simple This book did a great job naming all the fallacies I've been witnessing and armed me so I can fight when I spot one. However I wish there were more examples as they make things easier to understand and more fun!

  18. 4 out of 5

    Jen

    Useful for those of us who were not debaters in high school! Simple but clear review of commonly used but flawed styles of arguing (and how to rebut them). Useful for those of us who were not debaters in high school!

  19. 4 out of 5

    Richard

    Great defined falacies Deep consideration of different types of fallacies and how to handle each case, well thought out book. Loved the layout

  20. 5 out of 5

    Mark Ely

    Simplistic Overstated title: he has barely begun, a dozen examples is a good start but hardly "definitive" and does not mean one has "mastered" a subject.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Anis

    Basic ideas Nicely explained, the author is loosing his time on religion and politics. Still , I like it for it's simplicity.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Dick Hamilton

    It was okay but I would try something else.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Gwen A

    Very useful these days in the age of information literacy.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Jacob Robertson

    It was a bit boring.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Brent

    Too new at rhetoric to provide an informed review of the content. The book design however, is top notch. Lots of color, white space and illustrations to help the mind digest all that heavy logic.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Julie Richert-Taylor

    Have NOT mastered. And my rhetoric is so far from flawless. But this felt to be an excellent primer.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Jen

    Clear Clear, concise thinking with great examples. Contains enough text to get the point across, but not so much that it becomes tedious. Teaches how to think correctly. Well done.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Kristjan Heinmets

    If you have had any encounters with or are aware of the notions of critical thinking, evidence based argumentation or empirical significance, then this book is not worth your time. However, if none of the notions mentioned ring a bell, please, please, read it!

  29. 5 out of 5

    Steve

    I got a copy of this book for my 10 year old. Then I decided that I needed to read it myself, in part as a reaction to having been in far more conversations around recent political events where some of the arguments made no sense to me. The book helped me understand how to recognize and address those kinds of arguments. It also has helped me to take a step back in discussions in other domains, including technical discussions at work. Having a framework for understanding these kinds of fallacies c I got a copy of this book for my 10 year old. Then I decided that I needed to read it myself, in part as a reaction to having been in far more conversations around recent political events where some of the arguments made no sense to me. The book helped me understand how to recognize and address those kinds of arguments. It also has helped me to take a step back in discussions in other domains, including technical discussions at work. Having a framework for understanding these kinds of fallacies can help you to put a conversation in context, and be able to (more) calmly address the issues people are raising, rather than react emotionally and perhaps commit the same kind of fallacies yourself. While I can’t speak fully to the thoroughness of the discussion of the fallacies (maybe if I had either taken the forensics class in High School, or considered the Debate Team!) I found this to be a really good bit of background. Some of the examples are a bit strained, but the message gets through. I still plan to share the material with my 10 year old so that he can learn how to have good discussions -- something it’s never too early to learn! Reading this book is a tool that can help you navigate conversations (especially political ones) be they on Facebook or in person.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Kenneth Griswold

    This book did a great job of defining the fallacies. However, his examples for the fallacies suffered from an overwhelming (I'd guess around 80%-20%) liberal bias. And therefore, some of his examples looked, to this conservative, absolutely ridiculous and reactionary. As an example: when giving an example of the "naturalistic fallacy" (defined as "identifying a non-natural property, such as goodness, with a natural property, such as pleasure. More colloquially, deriving the fact that something o This book did a great job of defining the fallacies. However, his examples for the fallacies suffered from an overwhelming (I'd guess around 80%-20%) liberal bias. And therefore, some of his examples looked, to this conservative, absolutely ridiculous and reactionary. As an example: when giving an example of the "naturalistic fallacy" (defined as "identifying a non-natural property, such as goodness, with a natural property, such as pleasure. More colloquially, deriving the fact that something ought to be the case from the fact that it is the case"), Withey says this: "Many political opinions, both reactionary and revolutionary, depend on this fallacy. You may may be familiar with it in, for instance, a homophobe's declaration that homosexuality is wrong, (sic) because it is unnatural.... So it's hard to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, (sic) if animals also engage in it...." (pg. 150, 152). Of course, his caricature is a strawman of what the natural law understanding of sex is, and his name calling is both an inaccurate and inappropriate ad hominem attack, making him guilty of some of the very fallacies he tackles in his work. This internal flaw along with the liberal bias, dings him 2 stars for my review.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.