Reddit mentions of Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic

Pointing out fallacies is worse than useless if you cannot explain why a given person's line of reasoning does not support their conclusion. But if you can explain the relevant information, giving the fallacy a name is still useless.

The book I used when I taught critical thinking is this one but it is pretty expensive. Try looking around for a good critical thinking textbook.

> is on the losing side of an argument

Nice argument lol.

2 times u have given false claims to support an argument and yet people have linked you facts Peru and Chile servers don't work for ranked. Ohh.... here is another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/5equ4v/petition_to_make_valve_change_us_east_to_peru/dafgsdg/?context=3

Pick up a good book. I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480132593&sr=8-2&keywords=understanding+arguments. Maybe you can learn something.

Great, go post it there and have others laugh at you for not being able to differentiate between shock tactics and academic arguments by analogy.

You need this book: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953

Read it. Learn something.

Logic admittedly isn't my area of expertise, but the logic class I took several years ago used this, which does a pretty good job of breaking down basic types of logical arguments, so that would probably be helpful. The Little Logic Book would also be a great and accessible guide for learning how arguments work, and how to both construct good arguments while recognizing bad ones. Beyond that, I'd say read good philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, since they have a tendency to be a bit more clear and organized with their thoughts. I learned a lot from reading Plantinga when I was first finding my footing, and I'm sure a thread made requesting good examples of clear and accessible instances of analytic philosophy would yield many more results. I might also check out Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, since they both write in a fairly clear style that uses fairly basic and clear instances of argument to build their ideas and express them clearly, and there will be shelves upon shelves of secondary material on them to help you see all the little subtleties going on in their work. Hope this helps.

but what it sounds like and describes are different things. the only reason someone would perceive it that way is because they think the concept of "good reasoning" is a joke or not as complex as it actually is. (try to get >98th percentile on the LSAT.)

good reasoning is easily evaluated by a set of pretty objective (relatively speaking) criteria.

1. how logically coherent are the claims (does the conclusion follow from the premise)
   
   
2. are the claims ambiguous
   
   
3. are these claims supported with some kind of evidence, preferably empirical
   
   
4. if replying, are the claims relevant (do they address central claims made by other people)
   
   I could probably think of more. there are several argumentation books you can buy which list "rules for argumentation" (a really good one is Understanding Arguments by Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin, but on this issue particularly Walton's Informal Logic is great), and there tends to be a lot of commonality among the rules

Okay mate!

Thanks!

Enjoy continuing with your poor logic, comprehension and reasoning.

I highly recommend the following for you bro

https://wabisabistore.com/collections/books-and-guides/products/critical-thinking-teacher-companion

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953

No. The argument is not a form of modus tollens. Also, we're not doing formal logic here, we're doing informal logic. There is a huge difference.

Alternatively, if you would like me to phrase my concerns in a deductive logical procedure unnatural to our everyday use of language and argumentation, by all means, ask.