Logic ... what next?

[~Amanda~]

I've got Art of Argument for this year. I found the suggested schedule on the website; it has it for 5, 4, 3, or 2 days a week. If you do it 3 days a week, you can get it done in half a year. If its 2 days a week, it still doesn't take all year to complete the program. After Art of Argument, its Discover of Deduction; which really looks like it can be done in half a year, as well. So if we do AoA for a semester, then DoD for a semester, and then next year do Argument builder, assuming its only a semester as well, then what do I do for logic? try philosophy maybe? I don't want to have repetition in the subject, but I have a 6th grader and a 7th grader; should I only do the 7th grader in the AoA for now? I still have half a year of nothing there though if I double up and do 2 a year.

[ktgrok]

I know they say it is just a semester course, but honestly, we preferred doing it over the course of a year. I think faster than that is pushing it.

[Paula in PA]

I know they say it is just a semester course, but honestly, we preferred doing it over the course of a year. I think faster than that is pushing it.

 

:iagree: I have it scheduled for 3 days a week over the entire year. I didn't see the point in rushing through it when I want my dd to get very familiar with it and hopefully internalize it. She also has plenty of other things going on, both academic and extracurricular, that I felt it would overwhelm her trying to do it in just one semester. I plan on spending one year for each of the following books as well.

[~Amanda~]

ok, that makes sense.

 

Additional question, then; if you've done philosphy for kids, do you do it in place of or concurrently with a logic curriculum?

[lewelma]

We did AoA in 6th, and will do DoD in 7th. Philosophy for Kids we did/will do over 2 years concurrently with AoA and DoD.

 

I have found that we need to continually review the informal fallacies if I want them to stick. We see them in newpapers, billboards, discussions, etc. I think a full year of review might be required.

 

Argument Builder is more of a writing/Rhetoric curriculum. It overlaps with programs like Lost tools of Writing and Corbett's Rhetoric text.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Chrysalis Academy]

We did AoA in 6th, and will do DoD in 7th. Philosophy for Kids we did/will do over 2 years concurrently with AoA and DoD.

 

I have found that we need to continually review the informal fallacies if I want them to stick. We see them in newpapers, billboards, discussions, etc. I think a full year of review might be required.

 

Argument Builder is more of a writing/Rhetoric curriculum. It overlaps with programs like Lost tools of Writing and Corbett's Rhetoric text.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth, how do you thing Argument Builder compares to the other writing programs you've reviewed, like LTOW and Corbett and WWS? Have you looked at it closely? I'm curious if it it's material will eventually be covered in WWS, or if the focus on creating arguments in writing will be somewhat unique and/or more focused.

[lewelma]

Ruth, how do you thing Argument Builder compares to the other writing programs you've reviewed, like LTOW and Corbett and WWS? Have you looked at it closely? I'm curious if it it's material will eventually be covered in WWS, or if the focus on creating arguments in writing will be somewhat unique and/or more focused.

 

Well, I don't have all my books in front of me because I am in OH. I own Argument Builder, and I don't personally like it. It is not in the fun format of AoA, but has more boring text without the excitement of AoA. I MUCH prefer LToW to AB, and both cover the same material on creating arguments. AB, LToW, and Corbett all cover Invention: Definition, Cause/Effect, Statistics, etc. Corbett, however, is not super clearly written, so definitely appropriate for late high school. As for WWS, if I remember correctly from reading her planned schedule, SWB will be covering about half of the categories of Invention. I assume that the rest will be covered in her high school program. So from that point of view, LToW covers more invention than WWS. But WWS covers a lot more other types of material, like critical reading, outlining, narration, description, etc.

 

HTH

 

Ruth in NZ who is currently in OH

[~Amanda~]

I've never heard of LToW. Something new to go look up :P

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, I don't have all my books in front of me because I am in OH. I own Argument Builder, and I don't personally like it. It is not in the fun format of AoA, but has more boring text without the excitement of AoA. I MUCH prefer LToW to AB, and both cover the same material on creating arguments. AB, LToW, and Corbett all cover Invention: Definition, Cause/Effect, Statistics, etc. Corbett, however, is not super clearly written, so definitely appropriate for late high school. As for WWS, if I remember correctly from reading her planned schedule, SWB will be covering about half of the categories of Invention. I assume that the rest will be covered in her high school program. So from that point of view, LToW covers more invention than WWS. But WWS covers a lot more other types of material, like critical reading, outlining, narration, description, etc.

 

HTH

 

Ruth in NZ who is currently in OH

 

Thank you! That does help. I'm planning on AoA for 6th and DoD for 7th, and we're doing WWS now, and I've tentatively got LToW and Corbett in mind for later, depending on how WWS shakes out in future volumes (this is mostly based on your stellar reviews of the different writing programs! ;)). But liking the looks of AoA, I wondered if AB was going to be a must-do. Sounds like not.