I cannot speak though for the sections on propositional and predicate logic, for I didn't read them in either Copi or Hurley. Having gone through much of the content and ordering of information that Hurley, Copi and others gave numerous times, I now think much is done simply to be done, without any sense of relationship and practical value, and lots of The first logic textbook I went mostly through was by Copi and I must say Hurley's introduction was far better in format, content and exercises. The first logic textbook I went mostly through was by Copi and I must say Hurley's introduction was far better in format, content and exercises.
I ended up passing logic class with another solid D proving that I am not only illogical, but I am consistent in my lack of understanding geometry. Everyday I stared at that stupid red origami crane, watching it mock me as I attempted-and was obliterated- by proofs. In high school I passed geometry with a very solid D. That was when I knew I was in a world of hurt. Sure, I said to myself, I can see the fallacy in these arguments and whether they are deductive or inductive, etc. At first I thought I could handle Philosophy of Logic. Everyday I stared at that stupid red origami crane, watching it mock me as NOPE! This book is just an expensive reminder that I am more pathological than logical.
NOPE! This book is just an expensive reminder that I am more pathological than logical.