Some of the examples are useful/helpful in illustrating the concepts, but there are too much time spent on elaborating the unnecessary or repeating the points.

Se ofrece el curso traducido a varios idiomas pero sólo los videos están traducidos. Los cuestionarios y las preguntas emergentes no están traducidas.

There should be more written resources available given the volume of content covered. It was a little hard to retain it all by watching the videos.

It was interesting but later i found it boring .But it was a good experience.

Walton sir you were very good.Thank you for giving this class.

First part is quite intresting, but then lectures are too long and repetitive. I suppose previous course was much better.

One of the questions I got wrong on the final quiz suggest all birds fly as a correct answer, wrong ALL BIRDS do not fly.

This course was a struggle for me. The quizzes were sometimes hard to follow when it came to breaking down arguments

The course is overly theoretical with little real world application. This is the reason I lost interest.

Nice topic and great talks and exercises. I just would like more feedback with our own arguments!!!

Videos cut off before the end and would instantly start replaying from the beginning

mala traduccion al español y se limita la comprension del curso

No es como me lo habían platicado al venderme el curso

I am not too fond of the examples used

A lot of "okays?' Interesting class

A bit boring, sometimes confusing.

Me calificaron mal mi ultimo quiz

Wonderful, Final Quiz is so hard

Pretty heavy on the linguistics

This was a strange course.

Somewhat outdated videos.

No es lo que esperaba

Un poco enrevesado

Super

I enrolled in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking expecting a structured, practical approach to argumentation, logical reasoning, and fallacy detection. What I got instead was a tedious, obsessive deep dive into minute linguistic distinctions and an over-intellectualized approach that frequently lost sight of the course's supposed goal: helping students think more critically. An Exercise in Pedantic Nitpicking One of the most frustrating aspects of this course was its insistence on dissecting arguments down to an almost microscopic level, often at the expense of broader understanding. The fixation on labeling individual words (e.g., guarding, assuring, discounting) in a way that felt closer to an obsessive-compulsive sorting exercise than an actual tool for developing critical thought was mind-numbing. Assignments felt less like lessons in logical reasoning and more like parsing legal contracts with a magnifying glass while someone whispers, “Did you spot the premise marker?” in your ear. Rather than teaching students how to recognize flawed arguments in real-world discourse, the course buried its lessons under layers of abstract categorization that served little purpose outside an insular academic setting. The practice of meticulously labeling words and phrases in a passage with multiple-choice guesswork felt less like logic and more like linguistic taxonomy gone mad. The Redundancy of It All Many concepts could have been taught efficiently, yet the course dragged them out unnecessarily, often covering the same ideas with slight variations across multiple modules. Instead of reinforcing ideas through practical application, the course seemed to revel in beating a dead horse with semantic analysis. It’s as if the instructor believed that logic and critical thinking could only be taught through an endurance test of patience, not through engaging exercises or real-world examples. The peer-reviewed assignments were another disaster. When assignments are dependent on other students to be graded, the quality of feedback is inconsistent at best and outright useless at worst. Meanwhile, completing peer reviews of other students' work felt like another exercise in busywork, forcing participants to engage with the same inane exercises multiple times. Final Thoughts: An Exercise in Tedium Disguised as Intellectual Rigor This course could have been a practical and engaging introduction to logic and argumentation, but instead, it became an exercise in pointless minutiae. The obsessive focus on categorization, excessive parsing of sentences, and lack of real-world application made it feel more like an AI-driven task generator than a meaningful learning experience. If you enjoy analyzing sentences to the point where you question your own sanity, then this course is for you. If, however, you actually want to learn how to think critically, detect fallacies, and construct strong arguments, you’d be better off reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman or literally anything written by a philosopher who doesn’t mistake OCD-level parsing for actual logic. Final rating: 2/5 – Logic should be about clarity, not convoluted word sorting exercises.

I learned a lot about arguments. However, I feel that it was at times very confusing and difficult to understand. There was not enough practice to learn how to apply the theories and concepts of arguments. It was as difficult as taking a Math course without tools for practicing the problems of the concepts and theories. Also, the instructors should refer to other Cousera MOOCs that make learning material easy to recall and fun such as Mindshift (from McMaster University) ; Learning How to Learn (from several partners); Positive Psychology: Resilience Skills (from the University of Pennsylvania); Psychological First Aid (from Johns Hopkins University); and the Science of Success (from the University of Michigan). The professors who teach these courses make it so easy to understand the material and remember it. I have even gone back to review these courses and recommended them to my family members. I will not recommend this course. This MOOC was the first MOOC that I had problems with. I had to take the final quiz more than once in other to pass it. The presentation of the material needs to be improved. This explains why lots of people are not taking the course.