"The Logic of Real Arguments", by Alec Fisher, has had a pretty big impact on me. He develops a framework and some tools to use when analyzing real-world arguments, including extracting "A and B therefore C" statements, and asking questions like, "How would I know if this were wrong?" Then applies it to a number of passages from famous works. Discussing ideas with people with whom I disagree (at least initially) is both my job (only sometimes thankfully) and my hobby, and this book has allowed me to be a lot more effective in listening and communicating back.
For another logic text, I really enjoyed Walton’s Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach.
It describes arguments as existing within different types of dialectic contexts (e.g. debate, deliberation, negotiation). Arguments that are fallacious in one context (e.g. threatening your opponent in a debate) are not in other contexts (e.g. threatening your opponent in a negotiation). From this, informal fallacies are defined not as inherently bad arguments that must always be avoided, but rather they emerge when one inappropriately shifts the dialectic from one type of argument to another.
