The quizzes were a bit difficult because some of the items weren't discussed well in the lectures. It would be better if there were more comprehensive explanations to the answers in the quizzes

While still a very useful course, the material was less interesting to me personally than the first module. However it was still very rewarding and I enjoyed the instructor's lectures!

The optional discussions are kind of difficult. Didn't see much discussions from it. It would be great if professors can give some answers for that.

Somewhat confusing at certain points. The explanations don't exactly track the exercises that follow it. However, it is overall a useful course.

Great explanations for most subjects. The tests are significantly more complicated than the excercises covered by the lectures.

The course is extremely useful, but I found that the instructor is redundant. I often put the video speed on 1.5x.

A good continuation of Think Again I. However, final quiz had lots of bugs in it.

Would've liked more on the truth table of the conditional.

Here's the thing - I did really enjoy this class. I think that it fit in really well with the overall specialization course of logic. I think the professor did a good job explaining concepts and theories in the lectures. The problem for me was that he didn't explain when you got a question wrong. In many of the quizzes and the final quiz, if I got a question wrong it would just say "Incorrect" but it wouldn't tell me why. That would be fine if the truth tables we were covering were orginially covered in the lectures, but they weren't. It truly feels like I went through this course twice because I kept having to repeat lectures and quizzes to see if I was missing something. Overall, I enjoyed what was taught. I just think that quizzes were much too difficult and didn't connect clearly enough to the truth tables that were covered in lectures.

The content of the course and the instructor were comprehensive and professional, but the quiz system is terrible. The questions were full of technical errors and problems. Also, I have to mention that the final quiz asks you new questions every time you retake it after failing. This makes it difficult to complete the course. Also, this course felt more abstract to me compared to the other courses in the specialization. Perhaps this abstraction should have been reduced by using a practical approach instead of theory and abstract language.

Combined with the book, it's a good course. But, if you only rely on the videos, the quizzes and final exam will be quite difficult. The quizzes and final exam contained much more difficult scenarios than presented or covered in the lectures.

Interesting material, but the videos are sometimes hard to follow, and part of the truth-table exercises do not prepare too well for the Final Quiz questions on the topic

Muitas das questões do quiz final não foram explicadas pelo professor, nem como resolvê-las.

TIrando esse grande problema, o curso em si é muito bom.

Still not very clear about Venn Diagram.

There is some solid information here, but I have some serious gripes about how Dr. Neta presents information and sets up questions in tests.

To preface, I am taking these courses for practical application in my everyday life, I am not sitting down and dissecting arguments for academia or fun. Before I get into it, I DO think that Truth tables and (more so) venn diagrams have value in visualizing the logic of some arguments.

That being said, There is so much impractical information that you are expected to know on quizes like the AEIO's and structure of certain truth tables that are just so wildly impractical that I can't imagine that they were put in the test for any other reason than a lack of creativity on Dr. Netas part.

I also have a gripe with some of the jargon. Start with using "conjunction" instead of the truth-functional whatever that you repeat 6 times in a row to the point where I don't even know if the point is teaching more so than trying to entertain yourself in what seems like a mandatory teaching of something Dr. Neta does not want to do.

Side note, it is strange and off-putting that Dr. Neta chooses so many examples where Walter is a "dog abuser" or purveyor of vodka and bourbon or some other seemingly negative example.

Unless you are a die-hard academic, I'd skip this section of the course. It's bloated with nonsense and could have been summed up in one or MAYBE two weeks opposed to three.

I wasn't enthusiastic about this course, however I signed up for it because it was part of the Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization. I soon found that the professor displayed even less enthusiasm than I was feeling. He was living proof of one of the premises mentioned in the course that "some professors are robotic and montone." Formal or symbolic logic can be a dry topic. Even so, I'm sure it must have practical, real-world applications. That wasn't remotely apparent from this course. There seemed to be a preference for the abstract over the concrete and the theoretical over the pragmatic. The tests seemed more designed to display the professor's cleverness than to check that students acquired the requisite knowledge or skills. There seemed to always be a meta logic challenge at work involving "two of the above," "all of the above" and "none of the above." It wasn't non-unclear what the not non-questions didn't not want to not non-ask. Maybe it's just the contrast in teaching styles between Professor Sinnott-Armstong and Professor Neta. Whatever it is, I'm just glad to have this over with. There's fifteen hours of my life I won't be getting back. But I have my piece of paper.

I did not enjoy this course despite loving Math and logical puzzles. I went into the Think Again series with a different expectation of using logical tools to analyse real life arguments - not harping on the entire time on abstractions. The tests were not very helpful again because they were very theoretical all the time. The final test was a nightmare honestly with much higher rigor required on the pure logic-based questions on truth tables - all the time kept me wondering why am I doing this.

it may be good for someone who is interested in logical thinking - for not someone who is looking at understanding and improving arguments - not that great.

In My Opinion,Dr.Neta And The Very Confusing Disorganized Final Quiz Really Ruined This Class For Me.No Matter What Answers You Choose You Will Always Get 30%.I Cannot Finish This Course Until What Ever Is Wrong With The Final Quiz Is Fixed,At That Time I Will Give This Course Four Stars.Also I Hope The Next Class Has The Other Instructor As The First Class In This Course Did.

Some parts of the lecture are not explained good, neither is it enough to get through the test well.

Não perca seu tempo com esse curso. Ele é desnecessariamente extenso, desvia para outros assuntos totalmente alheios ao tema. O exercício final, além de também desnecessariamente extenso, extremamente maçante e cansativo, é impossível de ser atingida a nota mínima, pois as simbologias dos enunciados são extremamente confusas, de maneira que apenas decifrar o que cada enunciado está solicitando já é um trabalho hercúleo. São 30 questões, cada uma com um enunciado mais confuso que a outra e que se alteram a cada tentativa, de modo que você não consegue nem reaproveitar o que já havia acertado. Enfim, é um curso extremamente chato, entediante, que poderia custar 10% do tempo que custa se fosse objetivo e que, a não ser por muita sorte, de tão mal elaboradas que são as questões. Um curso feito para você desistir. Abandonei.

The first course was way better:(