I always aim to order a text that provides a ‘straight’ version of introductory logic, even as I push against it and riff off of it. At first glance, this text seemed promising for that purpose. It’s extremely short and explicitly designed to be supplemented by conversation.
I don’t even mind the constant reassurances that each step is easy—no problem, no remainder, nothing thought-provoking. I can simply poke fun at these moments and introduce the problems myself.
But at this point, I don’t see how to use this as a primary text in a first logic course, or even as a reference tool, without introducing unnecessary confusion—confusion that we would then have to waste time dispelling. I don’t want to spend valuable in-person time compensating for what’s needlessly awkward—often, it seems, because the drive for concision is either pushed one step too far or applied inconsistently.
Of course, there is no single ideal formal system for an introduction to logic, not even a single ideal system of natural deduction—just as there is no single ideal programming language.
And to be fair, the design innovations here are interesting, in retrospect—for someone who already understands not just the logical technique but also some of the philosophical issues driving these choices. It would be valuable to take a natural system of natural deduction and show, in a second step on the way to a third, that these modifications can be made. But doing so presupposes both a technical grounding and a motivation—neither of which this text is likely to help students acquire. The latter (motivation) can be supplemented with commentary and resistance. The former (technical grounding) is harder to make up for without - another straight text to come to the rescue of this one.
My view is extremely revisable.