Introductory Logic vs. Art of Argument

[NotDaMama]

We are using VP next year, and our Ds will be learning 7th grade logic. VP recommends Introductory Logic or Art of Argument for the core logic curriculum. Both programs, and their follow-on books, look appealing. However, we are having a hard time choosing which is best. Could someone provide reasons to pick on over the other?

 

If there is a past thread on this, please point us there, we are happy to save time and discussion if it has already been discussed. :001_smile:

 

Thanks

[NotDaMama]

Bumping

[PeterPan]

AoA isn't logic like Wilson/Nance or TL (Cothran). Personally, I'd look at the samples on CBD and see which one you think you're more likely actually to be able to IMPLEMENT. They're both fine, and I've tickled with the idea of doing Nance after we finish TL1/2 (or maybe 1 then Nance 1, then...) because they are different. TL/Cothran is fabulous simple to implement. It's structured, has short segments. It's something I can get DONE. Done is all that matters to me right now. Nance might be more fascinating, more disctinctly christian, blah blah, but Cothran gets DONE.

 

AoA sucked in our house. The ads were fine, but it wasn't really a good format for us. It wasn't deep enough to suit the way I like to teach (hated it, frankly), and it wasn't something she would use well on her own. It was just an utter flop. Most people seem to like, so whatever. Doesn't replace Nance or Cothran. And VP does sell TL1/2. I thought that's what they were using in their online (live) classes as well. You could check.

[fluffybunny]

I prefer the James Nance Intro to Logic. It's straight forward and has exercises every page or two. We also use the videos to go with it. I prefer it to the Cothran Intro to Logic I, but I really like Cothran's book II.

 

I also have the AoA and DoD. AoA is Informal Logic, whereas the Nance book is Formal logic and so is Dod. I find DoD too wordy for a boy to listen to or read, but he does enjoy the Socrates dialogues.