What do you think?
Rate this book
With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies
1
274 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1976
22 people are currently reading
606 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
October 12, 2016
This book is best for the examples and exercises. My favorite (from a discussion of Amphiboly):
"Dog for sale. Will eat anything. Especially fond of children."
Main weaknesses were:
1. Organization: In general, Irving Copi's presentation is better organized. For example, Engel divides disagreements into genuine and linguistic disagreements. Copi very helpfully adds a third category: apparently linguistic disagreements. Engel's oddly subsumes this category under "linguistic disagreements."
2. Many introductory logic books, Engel's included, give the impression that arguments are conducted merely by flagging down fallacies. I call amphiboly! ... Caught you using the Fallacy of Accent! ... Ha! You just asked a Complex Question! This may be how exercises in logic books work. But in the real world you don't defeat arguments by announcing their fallaciousness. You have to argue for their fallaciousness, like you have to argue for everything else. A nice two-paragraph warning here would have been helpful.
3. I could have done without the cheap shots at Christianity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is not an example of fallacious personification. It is a figure of speech and a rather striking one at that. If you can't get this, then, well, you probably spend too much time reading boring logic books and need to get out more. And that last sentence isn't an example of poisoning the well.
"Dog for sale. Will eat anything. Especially fond of children."
Main weaknesses were:
1. Organization: In general, Irving Copi's presentation is better organized. For example, Engel divides disagreements into genuine and linguistic disagreements. Copi very helpfully adds a third category: apparently linguistic disagreements. Engel's oddly subsumes this category under "linguistic disagreements."
2. Many introductory logic books, Engel's included, give the impression that arguments are conducted merely by flagging down fallacies. I call amphiboly! ... Caught you using the Fallacy of Accent! ... Ha! You just asked a Complex Question! This may be how exercises in logic books work. But in the real world you don't defeat arguments by announcing their fallaciousness. You have to argue for their fallaciousness, like you have to argue for everything else. A nice two-paragraph warning here would have been helpful.
3. I could have done without the cheap shots at Christianity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is not an example of fallacious personification. It is a figure of speech and a rather striking one at that. If you can't get this, then, well, you probably spend too much time reading boring logic books and need to get out more. And that last sentence isn't an example of poisoning the well.
January 12, 2008
Good book on informal fallacies. Humor (and even cartoon drawings!) is used throughout the book. Thus this text isn't as arid as most logic texts are. With Good Reason is definately introductory, but it is a good introduction. This book is a good place to start your informal fallacy training.
January 17, 2023
If youre looking for a book that will help you be a better at substantial arguments; read this book— it’s a book and a guide in identifying fallacies in statements.
January 7, 2025
A classic textbook, but a little dated.
This is a model example of a good textbook. It includes informative text, thought provoking questions, answers and even cartoons which illustrates its themes. It also presents a good set of historical examples of ambiguities and assumptions from the events of ancient Greece to examples from UK and US politics.
The book is in its sixth edition, so it has largely worked out and improved issues involving the expression and sequencing of ideas. Nevertheless, there were a couple of places in the book where revision might aid clarity. For example on page 35 the language of ‘truth, validity and soundness’ is introduced, but those terms only apply to Deductive arguments. Inductive arguments are not introduced until p43, where a slightly different terminology is then explained. It would be helpful to flag up to students on the earlier p35 that there are limitations in the application of what is being described as the terminology of argument.
Although the coverage of examples in the book is commendable and mixes informative historical examples with humorous ones, there is an arguable over-emphasis upon Anglo American examples. This is a shame because there are some interesting examples of biases and prejudices in the leaders of other nations. For example, Napoleon dismissed steam power for ships because he was so convinced that a ship could not sail against the tide. Similarly, Hitler arguably missed out on developing Nuclear weapons because of his prejudice against Jewish scientists.
Another area where there was a slight inconsistency was in the reference to Latin names for fallacies. Most examples were included but there were occasional omissions (such as petitio principii for ‘begging the question’).
One of the problems raised by this particular edition of the book is its age. This is not a mistake or error in the book itself, but it is a recognition that a lot of interesting developments have occurred in world politics over the last 25 years, since this edition of the book was published (eg Donald Trump, Brexit, etc). There have also been significant increases in issues surrounding fake news, pseudo science and medicine (etc). Modern courses on logic often include up-to-date examples from those contexts, but clearly the age of this book means that they cannot be included in it.
Overall this is an informative and useful book for class use, or for use by individual readers, as it gives a good generic introduction to the main types of fallacies. Where it is less useful is in identifying specific examples of how fallacies are occurring in the modern discourse of science and politics.
This is a model example of a good textbook. It includes informative text, thought provoking questions, answers and even cartoons which illustrates its themes. It also presents a good set of historical examples of ambiguities and assumptions from the events of ancient Greece to examples from UK and US politics.
The book is in its sixth edition, so it has largely worked out and improved issues involving the expression and sequencing of ideas. Nevertheless, there were a couple of places in the book where revision might aid clarity. For example on page 35 the language of ‘truth, validity and soundness’ is introduced, but those terms only apply to Deductive arguments. Inductive arguments are not introduced until p43, where a slightly different terminology is then explained. It would be helpful to flag up to students on the earlier p35 that there are limitations in the application of what is being described as the terminology of argument.
Although the coverage of examples in the book is commendable and mixes informative historical examples with humorous ones, there is an arguable over-emphasis upon Anglo American examples. This is a shame because there are some interesting examples of biases and prejudices in the leaders of other nations. For example, Napoleon dismissed steam power for ships because he was so convinced that a ship could not sail against the tide. Similarly, Hitler arguably missed out on developing Nuclear weapons because of his prejudice against Jewish scientists.
Another area where there was a slight inconsistency was in the reference to Latin names for fallacies. Most examples were included but there were occasional omissions (such as petitio principii for ‘begging the question’).
One of the problems raised by this particular edition of the book is its age. This is not a mistake or error in the book itself, but it is a recognition that a lot of interesting developments have occurred in world politics over the last 25 years, since this edition of the book was published (eg Donald Trump, Brexit, etc). There have also been significant increases in issues surrounding fake news, pseudo science and medicine (etc). Modern courses on logic often include up-to-date examples from those contexts, but clearly the age of this book means that they cannot be included in it.
Overall this is an informative and useful book for class use, or for use by individual readers, as it gives a good generic introduction to the main types of fallacies. Where it is less useful is in identifying specific examples of how fallacies are occurring in the modern discourse of science and politics.
March 3, 2017
Well worth reading. Even more than reading, well worth studying. I can't help but wonder what the author thinks about public discourse today. Perhaps never in history have informal fallacies been more commonplace. Everywhere one turns, from nightly news to magazines to social media, one finds innumerable examples of what the author warns us about. On the other hand, it is possible (and even likely?) that some may utilize this book precisely to learn the art of informal fallacies for the purpose of persuasion. At each of the many examples given in the book, I would find myself thinking of corresponding examples in mainstream media from just the past few months. (I would love to cite examples, but I'm afraid that would be considered a microaggression!) I'm concerned that too many people have lost the capacity to think rationally. In a better world, we would all agree to read this book, and then agree to call out informal fallacies wherever they are perpetrated on us. We should not have to put up with "fake news."
May 20, 2024
I really liked the class I read this book for, Informal Fallacies, but I believe that the book could have been better. The examples were mediocre and in some cases, had more than one answer though it was not specified. We discussed it in full in my class about the pros and cons of the book and I believe it is an excellent book but that there is one we have not yet found that would be a better alternative. I enjoyed the comics the book had in every chapter, the writing was engaging and the pictures kept one captivated by the examples.
Overall: 6.7/10
Overall: 6.7/10
September 1, 2025
This was textbook for an Oakland Community College course I took in the early 1990s. I love the taxonomy of fallacies amphiboly,
argumentum ad baculum
, etc. The examples are clear and the exercised illustrative. Many fallacy forms are, literally, illustrated with cartoons, mostly Far Side.
Oh my, I hope textbooks like this are still studied in schools today....
Oh my, I hope textbooks like this are still studied in schools today....
June 9, 2017
Just a sourcebook, I enjoyed the "human-speak" interpretation of the hairy logical arguments out there. I've been interested in this since the liberal/conservative culture wars reached their social-media-fueled fever pitch in 2016. So many bad, bad arguments out there. Fun to learn that there is a rubric-- an art-- to tearing them down. Definitely a great read for anyone interested in sharpening their logic skills! I know I'M tired of my emotional arguments getting blown to bits!
October 23, 2018
Clear, with good examples. Only read part 2 for my Logic class at Whitefield College.
March 8, 2021
Important foundations of logical reasoning with helpful exercises to build knowledge and habits.
March 3, 2023
A helpful overview of common informal fallacies.
July 14, 2024
This book is something that helped me dissect portions of an argument for me to input my opinion/argument. It is a great book that helps you learn to back your opinion to the argument.
August 22, 2008
A fabulous book, one I would suggest that everyone should read. Early editions did not contain as complex an amount of introductory material and in that regard were more readable to one interested merely in an informative and engaging introductory text on philosophical argument and fallacies of logic. Of course, this is a college textbook and therefore its compexity is bound to increase over time.
Don't be fooled however, if you don't really care for philosophy but still want some pointers on how to reason better and see the flaws in others reasoning (whether it be on the basis of religion, politics, or any other field of interest) this book is superb. The treatment Engel provides of the informal fallacies of logic are clear and easily understood. The style in which he had written does not require one to be familar with the topic previous to reading this text in order to comprehend it.
I am partciularly fond of the following excerpt:
"Unfortunately, in argument the one who talks longest, loudest, and last often comes out looking like 'the winner,' even though he or she may not have argued well at all. This is because if no one has answered the argument—if no one has actually shown that the argument is weak or unlikely, we are left thinking: the arguer could be right and, moreover, no one can point to anything wrong, so.... This is why we bother to dispute a point at all—if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it. All of which can lead us to feeling that we have no choice but to say and do things that we do not, at heart, chose or believe in." (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Sixth Edition [Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000], pp. 5-6.)
Anyone who has engaged in debate at any level will recognize the truth of this statement. Silence has always been intepreted as tacit agreement even if that is not the intention. This book will arm you with the ability to respond more intelligently.
Entertaining, informative, and educational. One piece of advice however: unless you are attending a college course, get the Instructor's Edition which includes an additional section at the back of the book with the answers to the quizzes/tests within its pages. These are very helpful and the answers will allow you to test your own understanding of the material more fully.
Don't be fooled however, if you don't really care for philosophy but still want some pointers on how to reason better and see the flaws in others reasoning (whether it be on the basis of religion, politics, or any other field of interest) this book is superb. The treatment Engel provides of the informal fallacies of logic are clear and easily understood. The style in which he had written does not require one to be familar with the topic previous to reading this text in order to comprehend it.
I am partciularly fond of the following excerpt:
"Unfortunately, in argument the one who talks longest, loudest, and last often comes out looking like 'the winner,' even though he or she may not have argued well at all. This is because if no one has answered the argument—if no one has actually shown that the argument is weak or unlikely, we are left thinking: the arguer could be right and, moreover, no one can point to anything wrong, so.... This is why we bother to dispute a point at all—if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it. All of which can lead us to feeling that we have no choice but to say and do things that we do not, at heart, chose or believe in." (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Sixth Edition [Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000], pp. 5-6.)
Anyone who has engaged in debate at any level will recognize the truth of this statement. Silence has always been intepreted as tacit agreement even if that is not the intention. This book will arm you with the ability to respond more intelligently.
Entertaining, informative, and educational. One piece of advice however: unless you are attending a college course, get the Instructor's Edition which includes an additional section at the back of the book with the answers to the quizzes/tests within its pages. These are very helpful and the answers will allow you to test your own understanding of the material more fully.
January 5, 2016
Generally, it is a good book about fallacies for writing. The author classified 3 main types of informal fallacies and then used quite a lot of examples to represent his analysis. It seems that he showed 3 types from easy to recognize to hard to reveal. I totally agree with him about chap 5 - Fallacies of Relevance however I doubt some analysis of examples in chap 3,4.
Furthermore, the first 2 chap are redundant. The author took advantage long space to explain nature of logic, communication, etc.
Furthermore, the first 2 chap are redundant. The author took advantage long space to explain nature of logic, communication, etc.
April 8, 2016
Nice and clear introduction, larded with examples and exercises. Pity that not all exercises were provided with answers. The look and feel of my copy (the 1986) was a bit outdated, but perhaps the revised edition is modernized. This book is definitely a good start for anyone who wants to get a feel for informal logic or just likes to spot faulty reasoning better.
June 24, 2011
A bit dry, but well organized. A good introduction to logical fallacies.
August 25, 2011
Great book. Covers deductive, inductive, and “seductive” arguments.
July 20, 2012
Good, but I like T. Edward Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" more.
Read
March 13, 2017I don't normally read non-fiction, which was why this was a boring read... but, nonetheless, informative for class.
December 1, 2015
I was supposed to read this book for school, but I didn't. I should have. Better late than never, I suppose. It was very interesting.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews