Exactly. You talk about something just based on a snippet of information read on Wikipedia.
I hope you now see that this is an incredibly weak basis to build strong arguments on. As you also shied away from actually stating anything precise you seem noteworthy from this book, this weak basis seems apparent to you too.
Do you agree with the book?
In which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint?
With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
How would you know if you haven’t read it?
That depends on what you are asking.
It doesn’t. You not being able to know if the book does a reasonable analysis is only due to you not knowing the book.
e: typo
You are clever, and I try to be clever, too. I only wrote that I think that the book does a reasonable analysis. I am able to know that.
If you still want to discuss the message of the book, which one do you have in mind?
How? You don’t know the book.
By being nitpicky about the way I phrased my answer.
You are right though, I cannot speak about the book. That’s why I only talk about things that are written in the Wikipedia page.
Exactly. You talk about something just based on a snippet of information read on Wikipedia.
I hope you now see that this is an incredibly weak basis to build strong arguments on. As you also shied away from actually stating anything precise you seem noteworthy from this book, this weak basis seems apparent to you too.
Have a good day.