Chevron Left
Voltar para Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively

Comentários e feedback de alunos de Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively da instituição Universidade Duke

4.4
estrelas
266 classificações
43 avaliações

Sobre o curso

Deductive arguments are supposed to be valid in the sense that the premises guarantee that the conclusion is true. In this course, you will learn how to use truth-tables and Venn diagrams to represent the information contained in the premises and conclusion of an argument so that you can determine whether or not the argument is deductively valid. Suggested Readings: Students who want more detailed explanations or additional exercises or who want to explore these topics in more depth should consult Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, Ninth Edition, Concise, Chapters 6 and 7 by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin. Course Format: Each week will be divided into multiple video segments that can be viewed separately or in groups. There will be short ungraded quizzes after each segment (to check comprehension) and a longer graded quiz at the end of the course....

Melhores avaliações

CW

May 20, 2019

This course sharpened my analytical thinking. Exam was deceptively difficult but worth taking multiple times.

SM

Jun 22, 2017

This entire series was informative, engaging, and fun, and the thinking skills taught are so valuable.

Filtrar por:

1 — 25 de 41 Avaliações para o Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively

por Gabriel A K

Jan 06, 2020

Explains very simple things in a complicated and repetitive way.

por Edwin C v E

Feb 11, 2018

The professor teaching the course did a good job explaining the concepts behind deductive reasoning. There are however some minor things that annoyed me:

(1) Some of the definitions could have been more formal. Sure, you can describe a category as a "collection of things", but a more rigid approach is useful for the more mathematically inclined.

(2) Wrong answers in the quizzes are not always explained. You just see "You should not have selected this answer." Okay, but WHY NOT? The learning experience would be better if an explanation would always be given.

(3) Some parts are incomplete. For example, the topic on immediate categorical inferences only discusses conversion. It would have been nice to discuss the obversion and contrapositive inference as well. Another example is the lack of the explicit treatment of the biconditional introduction and elimination argument, while the conjunction and disjunction introduction and elimination methods are fully covered.

(4) The time spent on the course is short in comparison to Think Again I. For example, week 3 contains less than an hour's effort. Week 2 is also rather short. Instead of cutting it short, useful concepts such as the square of opposition, which is pretty much the basis of the relations between categorical propositions, could have been discussed.

(5) At the end of one of the lectures, three links are given for further practice. One of the links didn't work.

(6) Some quizzes deal with material that is discussed in later sections.

(7) The exam was unbalanced. One lecture was about addressing the validity of an argument containing an unknown/ foreign word. The exam had many many questions about this (IMHO) less relevant subject.

All in all: the professor gets a 4.5, the content gets a 3, which makes a 4-.

por Susan M

Jun 22, 2017

This entire series was informative, engaging, and fun, and the thinking skills taught are so valuable.

por Engr. K O

Sep 03, 2020

very very challenging and tasking course. beautiful !!

por Renato A D

Apr 24, 2018

Pros: I found the content very interesting. And there's an analogy with digital design (Boolean Logic) where F=1 and T=0 and so &=AND gate; V=OR gate; biconditional=XOR gate. Pretty useful content. Shorter 4week course. Well explained.

Cons: The exam is very hard. I dont see whats the point of making many & and V and conditional and biconditional together like a huge formula, it takes too much time the calculation. On Venn Diagrams when starts to become shaded and with crosses at the same time (using only 2 categories) I guess is not explained very well on the lectures.

Comparison with MOdule I: I found this module less applicable on the daily-life, more theoretical (but easier).

It's worthy every time anyway.

por Michael F

Dec 04, 2017

I am sharing my disappointment of the care taken by the lecturer in preparing for his lectures. He is obviously an expert in Logic, and must be very intelligent to hold his academic position - so I have given the course a pass mark.

For example his use of Venn Diagrams was sloppy. I had already worked out that I could use Venn Diagrams before he introduced the idea, and I had sketched unambiguous diagrams to help me visualize the use of quantifiers. The lecturer just used an X to mark the intersection between two sets. This is an imprecise way of showing the intersection, and he could have easily drew different Venn Diagrams that unambiguously showed the various quantifiers. Also why did the lecturer choose to sit in a crappy little room, and not even take time to remove distracting objects from the desk behind him etc. To me he sent a signal that he couldn't even take time to arrange for a appropriate background nor design clear visual aids for his students. There are other Logic courses, and I will try them and hope they are better prepared and more respectful of students.

por Cliff S

Sep 12, 2016

The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems :

-little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums

-the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures

-the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content).

In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse.

por Rohit P

Jun 19, 2020

You can skip this one!

It is absolutely terrible and i don't think it lives up to it's title and expectations. The exams are disconnected from the rest of the course, it will waste a lot of time getting through. Yes! it's a waste honestly. Prof. Ram is a nice fellow but sometimes he's just not able to deliver as much information as can be spread in a 30 min lecture. 1 stars for his efforts only!

por Yaron K

Feb 21, 2020

The course teaches how to use Truth tables and Venn diagrams can help analyze arguments. However the explanations are convoluted and some of the examples are overly contrived.

por Carla L R

Aug 19, 2020

Both Walter and Ram are killing it at explaining this COMPLEX courses. SO GRATEFUL to Coursera for giving me the opportunity to learn from such talented people from outstanding universities.

Having completed both Think Again I and Think Again II, on with Think Again III!

por Lovina N

Sep 06, 2020

I had never thought about arguments in this way before. It was super confusing to deal with language with truth tables (in a mathematical type equations). But I had fun none the less. I hope to keep practicing and implementing this in the future.

por Humberto P

Dec 02, 2017

Really good course, the material and explanations are good, and even in some cases, resolving or understanding some ideas is challenging, you can get the idea with a little practice

por Charles C W

May 20, 2019

This course sharpened my analytical thinking. Exam was deceptively difficult but worth taking multiple times.

por Efrén M G P

Jul 28, 2020

harder than the first course, but so great. Thanks!

por Sumanta S S

Oct 20, 2017

Lucid and Clear conceptions of Deductive Logic.

por Euclides J L V

Feb 16, 2018

Amazing course, something utile for everyone.

por fozan t

Dec 25, 2017

A must course for every thinking person .

por Daniela E

Jul 22, 2020

Challenging but great

por Nicanor B

Aug 22, 2017

Excellent!!!!!!

por Kostas C

Oct 21, 2020

Great Course!

por matthew s

Mar 04, 2018

Excellent !

por darius

Jun 19, 2018

Great one!

por Carlos D R

Apr 29, 2018

amazing!

por Pham D D N

May 18, 2017

useful