Although this book is helpful in understanding some common logical fallacies, the author has his own biases that he brings to the table. For example, he considers something such as calling the Trinity a "mystery" a logical fallacy. But logic's purpose is to bring clarity and knowledge, whereas the term "mystery" does not intend to do that, but rather shows the limit on our knowledge, a boundary. It's akin to saying that a wall is a crime against a map. ( )

This is another pretty good book on logical fallacies. The author does use a lot of dated, cultural, and geographical references to make his point, but the points are valid irrespective of the contexts and they are well presented.

Add in smidgeons of humor woven throughout...sarcasm as well as just plain fun...and this is an enjoyable and informative, but not preachy, work for someone unfamiliar with the mechanics of critical thinking, or who just wants yet another perspective.

The fallacies discussed in this book have several reliable sources: Congress, talk radio, and newspaper editorials will give you all the material you need to hone your skill at spotting them.
[...]
People will hold an opinion because they want to keep the company of others who share the opinion, or because they think it is the respectable opinion, or because they have publicly expressed the opinion in the past and would be embarrassed by a “U-turn,” or because the world would suit them better if the opinion were true, or . . . Perhaps it is better to get on with your family and friends, to avoid embarrassment, or to comfort yourself with fantasies than to believe the truth. But those who approach matters in this way should give up any pretensions to intellectual seriousness. They are not genuinely interested in reality.

Be serious.
( )

All around us are statements, phrases, and bon mots which simply serve to obscure logic. Jamie Whyte’s Crimes Against Logic serves as a oasis of hope is a desert of slick dissimulation. Whyte’s main goal is to expose the devices that people use to turn a dubious argument or perspective into one that might be more believable. Many of these fall into categories of logical fallacy, such as the Authority Fallacy or False Equivalency or the Motive Fallacy (among many others). Along with these traps, there are also techniques, such as using jargon, weasel words, or hooray words that throw the listener or the reader off-kilter. This is not to say that everyone and everything is out to pull the wool over your eyes, but there are areas where language is deliberately couched. After reading this, it’s next to impossible to listen to a news broadcast or read an article without seeing all the hidden ways that facts are manipulated to fit the audience or the agenda. Pair this one with Farhad Manjoo’s True Enough and you’ll never trust anyone ever. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. A quick, eye-opening read. ( )

Like other reviewers, I found the tone of the book rather condescending. He reminds me of a group of armchair philosophers I knew who tried to use logic to convince me (and everyone they encountered) that there is no God. They're entitled to their opinion (or not unless it's right, Whyte would suggest), but I think it's missing the point to try to prove or disprove the existence of God.

This book introduced or better explained some concepts to me (I think I understand "begging the question" better than I did), but I'm turning to other sources for a more in-depth examination of logic, hopefully with a more friendly tone. ( )

A good, solid look at some of the most common logical mistakes. There were one or two amusing moments when the author actually committed a fallacy he'd just argued against, and there were a few places where he allowed his political preferences to color his arguments, but for the most part, it is a badly needed corrective to some of the most egregious mistakes being made in modern discourse. ( )