Here's a rundown on the main topics for the exam. Numbers 5 and 6 don't take up much space below, but are still very important parts of the exam.
1. Know what arguments are (premises, conclusion), how to diagram them (standard form and Aruacaria stuff with independent and collaborative arrows). Also know the basic distinctions between inductive and deductive and what makes these arguments good ones. E.g., you should know that deductive arguments are primarily formal and if good are both valid (good logic) and have true premises (good input). What are such arguments called? What are the related concepts that apply to informal arguments?
Much of this info can be found in chapter 1. But it may be easier just to look to the overview at the beginning of chapter 3's reference: ref3.htm#1.
You may expect to do the analysis of an argument like the sort you did on the midterm and the sort you've done recently for postings.
2. Know the types of informal arguments ref3.htm#types and think a bit about what makes them cogent. (We did this with arguments by analogy for the midterm.)
3. Be able to identify fallacies. There are lots of online exercises from chapter 3. They are randomized, so do some more! Overview3.htm#ex. Yes, there a lots of these! Concentrate first on the ones that are described in extra detail in the Cafe.
4. Symbolization from chapters 2 and 4 is a big part of symbolization in the later chapters. You can review the chapter 2 reference on this: ref2.htm#5.
Then make sure you can do the later symbolizations into categorical logic and PL. So, make sure you can do the basic symbolizations described in chapter 6.
In categorical logic, one might take "dogs are outside my house" or "only women are pregnant" and translate into standard categorical form. ("Some dogs are outside my house" or "All pregnant people are women"). See ref6.htm#sym.
For predicate logic, one needs to take things like those of categorical logic -- and sometimes more complicated things and symbolize in the language we began to develop back in chapter 4. If the universe of discourse is just persons, one might be asked to symbolize "No one is a tree" -- ~(%x)Tx -- or "All women are mortal" -- (^x)(Wx>Ox) -- or "Some men are lovers" -- (%x)(Mx&Lx) -- , etc. ref6.htm#1 and ref6.htm#5.
5. Derivations are sometimes easy (or I thought so...we can work on these over the phone or in review) and sometimes tough. Make sure you can do the pretty basic easy ones from 5.1-3 and 7.1. I'll ask you to do some harder ones too...but if you are struggling, just work with the easier ones.
6. Venn Diagrams...see the chapter 6 reference, ref6.htm#2, and do some more problems.