What do you think?
Good Reasoning Matters
Good Reasoning Matters! is an informal logic/critical thinking textbook designed to teach students a variety of reasoning strategies which can significantly improve their reasoning skills. This second edition updates and revises the original. It retains an emphasis on good reasoning but simplifies presentation of key concepts and adds new features which will help students and facilitate discussion and review. The new edition updated examples, exercises, and answers to many selected exercises.
378 pages, Paperback
First published April 15, 1989
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 5, 2026
An overview of critical thinking and philosophical logic. That means it probably does a little too much for readers interested in critical thinking, and arguably it provides a rather cursory summary for readers more interested in philosophical logic.
What was good about the book is that every chapter included a good set of questions to practice what had been taught. Less helpfully all the answers are on a website, which chapter 1 even gives the wrong url for. Apart from those glitches, the content itself was well focused and provides a very useful introduction to ‘good reasoning.’
One of the things which was a little off-putting in places is the labeling of ideas. For example, in
Chapter 2 we learned about biases. We were told that there are illegitimate biases which undermine thinking and there are legitimate biases which give reliable thinking outcomes. Is there really such a thing as a ‘legitimate bias?’ Surely the word ‘bias’ has pejorative connotations, like the word ‘murderer.’ So you dont get good and bad murderers. There are only bad murderers. So rather than distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate biases wouldn’t it have made sense to just refer to the illegitimate biases as biases, and to the legitimate ones as heuristics (rules of thumb) which are broadly speaking reliable?
Another terminology issue arose in chapter 4. Having introduced the technical term ‘inference indicators’, the point was then made that there are ‘conclusion indicators’ and ‘premise indicators.’ So why did we need the separate technical term of ‘inference indicators’ when actually the point being made concerned the other two types of indicators. An important pedagogical point for teachers is to try to introduce the minimum necessary of technical terms and labels, otherwise learners can be overwhelmed trying to remember unnecessary terms.
To be fair, there were some good and useful terminological points made. In chapter 12 for example, the author distinguished between ‘pro homine’ and ‘ad homine’ arguments, with the former relevant to establishing the credentials of an authority and the later as biased or inappropriate attacks upon a person’s credibility.
Overall, this is a helpful textbook (albeit a long one) which includes a good range of materials to help students engage with critical thinking. Readers should be aware that it is constantly getting updated and being published with new editions. The one I read was the fifth edition.
What was good about the book is that every chapter included a good set of questions to practice what had been taught. Less helpfully all the answers are on a website, which chapter 1 even gives the wrong url for. Apart from those glitches, the content itself was well focused and provides a very useful introduction to ‘good reasoning.’
One of the things which was a little off-putting in places is the labeling of ideas. For example, in
Chapter 2 we learned about biases. We were told that there are illegitimate biases which undermine thinking and there are legitimate biases which give reliable thinking outcomes. Is there really such a thing as a ‘legitimate bias?’ Surely the word ‘bias’ has pejorative connotations, like the word ‘murderer.’ So you dont get good and bad murderers. There are only bad murderers. So rather than distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate biases wouldn’t it have made sense to just refer to the illegitimate biases as biases, and to the legitimate ones as heuristics (rules of thumb) which are broadly speaking reliable?
Another terminology issue arose in chapter 4. Having introduced the technical term ‘inference indicators’, the point was then made that there are ‘conclusion indicators’ and ‘premise indicators.’ So why did we need the separate technical term of ‘inference indicators’ when actually the point being made concerned the other two types of indicators. An important pedagogical point for teachers is to try to introduce the minimum necessary of technical terms and labels, otherwise learners can be overwhelmed trying to remember unnecessary terms.
To be fair, there were some good and useful terminological points made. In chapter 12 for example, the author distinguished between ‘pro homine’ and ‘ad homine’ arguments, with the former relevant to establishing the credentials of an authority and the later as biased or inappropriate attacks upon a person’s credibility.
Overall, this is a helpful textbook (albeit a long one) which includes a good range of materials to help students engage with critical thinking. Readers should be aware that it is constantly getting updated and being published with new editions. The one I read was the fifth edition.
August 11, 2015
Awesome book! Very easy to read and very enjoyable. It's probably, if not definitely, the most enjoyable academic book I've ever read. Overall, if you want to learn some practical reasoning skills then definitely pick this book up.
December 5, 2008
I'm sorry. It's philosophy. It just doesn't interest me. But it was a well written book. Thus, I'll give it two stars, not one.
December 29, 2011
Really dry.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews