From the beginning, I conceived the future Baccalaureate or Faculty candidate as a traveler in an unknown country. In the absence of a guide to lead him, giving him the necessary explanations, putting at hand travel information, maps, plans, guidelines, etc., he will definitely experience a failure, which will turn the desired joy of the expedition into -an ordeal. Territories for travel are not only the geographical areas of the world, but also the vast fields of knowledge. Mathematics, physics, literature, etc. they are, each separately, vast areas, unknown to the outside eye. That's why, when we step into such a territory, it is useful to ask for the guidance of a "local". In addition, if most of the subjects in the class are studied for years, sometimes for the entire duration of the student's activity, logic has the disadvantage of being in the school curriculum for only one year. Moreover, the one who chose it as the subject of the exam should be looking for additional support points. Our conclusion is that Logic is a discipline that requires a specialized guide. Responding to such a need, meeting it, I designed this learning guide. The guide, of whatever kind, is a practical enterprise. On this "practical" dimension, I would like to add some ideas.
It is a well-known fact that, in order to support the learning of logic, a series of "guides" appeared on the "market" of books intended for this purpose, which, from our perspective, do not fully justify their intention. The student wants not only to have something to solve, but also to be shown "how" to do it. The student wants to be guided, and many of the logic works addressed to him fail to do this. They suffer either from an excess of theory, or from an almost exclusive burden of tests, rarely offering even summary solutions. The "guides" in the first way, at best explain the theory in the manual. But they do not actually help the candidate, but only double his learning effort. At the end of them, he finds himself as timid, helpless, as he was at the beginning, not knowing HOW to do what he is asked to do. The second kind of guide, the guide with many tests, but with indications of laconic solutions, such as those found in the evaluation scales for the subjects of the national exams, does not help much either, not having a guiding-corrective role. If he made a mistake, the candidate does not understand where he made a mistake, and if he answered correctly, he does not know why it was correct.
I tried to overcome both deficiencies in this guide. I designed it on the principle: we must start from what is required, to what I must do to solve what is required. For this reason, I resorted to theory only out of practical needs, leading it each time to precise ends: solving the test. The paper is divided into two distinct parts: the Baccalaureate Section and the Faculty Admission Section. After the prior presentation of the type of admission requirements, each section is built on two plans: a) step-by-step solution of the subjects given in previous years; b) the development of test sets, closely following the models for the development of subjects intended for both the Baccalaureate Exam and the one for admission to the faculty. The rest of the information can be found in detail in the work.