What inspired the author to focus on non-sororic logic in this book?
Around the Web·geçen ay
Okur tartışması şimdi açık. Doğrulanmış yazar bu profili talep ettikten sonra katılabilir.
What inspired the author to focus on non-sororic logic in this book?
Did anyone else find certain fallacies more relatable to everyday arguments than others?
How do you think this book changes the way we spot logical errors in media and conversations?