Calculus for the Utterly Confused

Rating:
Summary: I'm sorry I wasted my money
Review: Based on the description of this book, I thought I could gain a better grasp of the subject, only to discover that I was more confused than when I started. New concepts are thrown out with no explanation and examples are obscure at best. To make things worse, the silly cartoon-like attitude of the book is insulting to anyone who's looking for a serious solution to their dilemma. The implication is that the material is as easy to understand as a child's book, but there is no help for those who don't immediately grasp the concepts. After completing a Calculus class (and feeling quite comfortable with the subject) I revisited the book and confirmed that it is a terrible presentation for those who are in fact "Utterly Confused". I have sent it unceremoniously to the local landfill.

Rating:
Summary: A handy reference for calculus students.
Review: This is one of the most easy to understand and clear calculus books that I have read in a long time. It concentrates on some of the most used/practical subjects that most college students will need for their undergraduate studies. I have recommended this book to some of my friends and the reason for me writing this review is because I would like to let other "confused" readers know about how much of a big help this book has been.

Rating:
Summary: Good Idea-less than perfect execution
Review: This little book is a terrific idea. However, it needed a careful editing before printing. The diagram on page 33 was not labeled. The answer on page 51 is wrong. The answer on page 55 contains an answer (t=533) that not only is wrong, but should have rung a bell with the authors when they got it. (The correct answer is 53.3, which can easily be verified.) This proves that using a hand calculator without thinking about what size the answer ought to be leads to embarassing errors. This actually is a very instructive example, but the conclusion that 27 years is the most appropriate time to harvest the forest has no supporting theory. At this frequency of errors, I expect to find more as I progress.