I taught informal logic to freshmen for many years.

The most frequent negative evaluation was that the class was "too negative."

That was because in order to avoid fallacious reasoning, you have to be warned over and over against identifiable fallacies, with lots of awful examples to analyze.

The syllogisms (methods) for valid and sound arguments are, by contrast, very very few.

I think the students who thought the course was "too negative" were mainly disturbed by how vigilant they'd have to be in life not to be taken in - and how easy it is to fool people, even inadvertently.