A Rulebook for Arguments (book)

The virtues of this book are many. There is only one fault to this book, but it is significant. You decide which is more important.

This volume is slim and lightweight, precisely sized for the outside pocket of a student's backpack. Though too big for a shirt pocket, it is hard to imagine a book-bag so overstuffed that this book couldn't fit in one corner. Combined with the fact that it is inexpensive, that might make this the one book Freshman Composition students will hang onto when the class is over.

Unlike many books on writing papers, which are redundant and use many words to prove they're serious, this one is written to be short and useful. The tone is excellent for students who have a lot on their plates. The writing is concise, with short chapters which use straightforward rules and uncomplicated language to explain the most common forms of argument. The arrangement starts from broad rules and moves into specific categories, before getting into three chapters on writing papers. Each chapter is separated into clear subheads, allowing students to find the information they need very quickly.

This book does not address every form of argument. Arguments from commonplaces are not mentioned, and arguments from form are subsumed under the category of deduction, which is a bit of a loss. However, the forms of argument from external evidence are laid out in clear, readable language that college freshmen or advanced high-schoolers can savvy.

What the book lacks is any rules on case construction and the arrangement of complex multi-part arguments. The three chapters on writing papers focus on pre-writing, outlining, and the act of writing. The author says that complex arguments are no more than single arguments connected together, without bothering to say how they can or should be connected. I have graded too many Freshman Comp papers where the individual arguments are stuck together haphazardly like Lego blocks to consider this a small oversight.

So it's up to you which is more important: the many good traits this book brings, or the one glaring omission that you as a teacher will need to fill in. It's a delicate balance, and one that rides on your own skill with students. Only you can decide whether this book's many virtues matter more than its one big vice.

Everyone needs critical thinking. But who wants to learn it? Most books drone on and on about this or that rule with esoteric Latin terms seeping from every page. In such cases, critical thinking would suggest astute readers close the book and convert it to a doorstop. Thankfully, there's "A Rulebook for Arguments." This minuscule, concise, but nonetheless conceptually beefy book will cause little consternation for prospective thinkers. Clear throughout, the text contains just the right amount of explanation and examples to keep eyelids open and attention spans in check. Plus, at 87 pages it wouldn't make a good doorstop anyway.

The book's ten quick chapters build on each other. One through six provide tips and best practices for constructing solid arguments. Each one deals with a specific topic such as arguments by example, arguments by analogy, arguments from authority, arguments about causes, and deductive arguments (when things get more formal). The focus to this point remains on short arguments. Chapter seven changes gears, and builds on the previous chapters, by exploring the argumentative essay. All elements of the book come together in three brief sections dealing with "exploring the issue," "main points of the essay," and "writing." For the grand finale, a litany of classical fallacies appears. Though some Latin words saturate these pages ("ad hominem," "ad misericordiam," "non sequitur," etc.), the concepts remain extraordinarily accessible. Pay attention to "The Two Great Fallacies," namely, "generalizing from incomplete information" and "overlooking alternatives." A short appendix deals with definitions and an even shorter "Next Steps" section recommends additional reading.

Anyone who wants to argue effectively should commit this book to second nature memory. Irretrievably trap it in the neural network. This flimsy volume contains the crucial basics of critical thinking and sound argument. Every University (and High School) should demand their enrollees read it and read it again. It's the book you wished you had in college while half-soberly agonizing over writing assignments. But despite occasional explicit references to studenthood, adults should not shoo this book from their shelves. This stuff needs a lifetime of reinforcement. Put it next to Strunk and White (as the author suggests a little presumptuously) and peruse it periodically. Soon you'll hear fallacies dripping from every mouth, newscast and political speech. So read it - it doesn't take long - and say hello to critical thinking.

The book was in excellent condition upon arrival and it was a excellent price and arrived quickly.

As the title says, and as Weston writes in his introduction, this is "...not a text book, but a rule book." This short book is a useful desk reference for technical and scientific writers looking for practical approaches to structure written arguments clearly and logically.

A Rulebook for Arguments is certainly competent in its approach to intellectual debate. It is ideal for novices as the author's explanations are quite clear. My only reservations about it were due to my belief that Mr. Weston's examples were skewed in a leftist direction. By this I mean that his political orientation was evident based on the examples cited. One of which was an illustration of loaded language that referred to conservatives as people who describe themselves as those with a realistic view of human limits. Well, that's not the whole story of course, but it does accurately convey the contrast between the political right and leftists whose view of what is viable has no correlation with human nature. Another irksome proof was on display in regards to begging the question whereby one claims to know God exists because the Bible says it does. That is accurate but a convenient choice in my view. None of this is surprising as politicizing is ubiquitous among professors today who excuse their attempts at improper persuasion with the excuse of being "engaged." This manages to only detract slightly from the work as it remains technically solid. However, if one is looking for a book on fallacies you might look elsewhere. A Rulebook for Arguments has but an 8 page chapter concerning them.