{"id":17727,"date":"2024-03-26T21:05:31","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T21:05:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/no-place-to-hide-edward-snowden-the-nsa-and-the-u-s-surveillance-state-the-health-of-liberal-democracies\/"},"modified":"2024-03-26T21:05:31","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T21:05:31","slug":"no-place-to-hide-edward-snowden-the-nsa-and-the-u-s-surveillance-state-the-health-of-liberal-democracies","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/no-place-to-hide-edward-snowden-the-nsa-and-the-u-s-surveillance-state-the-health-of-liberal-democracies\/","title":{"rendered":"“No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State” – The Health of Liberal Democracies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Law and Society 415 – Critical Book Review<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Writing a Critical Book Review<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

A critical review is more than a simple summary or an
\nexpression of preference (like\/dislike). It is an analysis and evaluation of
\nthe book using appropriate criteria. It comments on and evaluates the work in
\nlight of the specific issues and concerns raised in a course.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Main paper idea\/thesis: <\/p>\n

Glenn Greenwald’s “No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden,
\nthe NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State” serves as a poignant expos\u00e9 that
\ninterrogates the health of liberal democracies in the face of expanding state
\nsurveillance powers. Through Snowden’s revelations, Greenwald illuminates how
\nthe unchecked proliferation of mass surveillance apparatuses undermines
\nfoundational tenets of liberal democracy, such as individual privacy,
\ngovernment transparency, and the rule of law. By critically examining the implications
\nof state surveillance on civil liberties and democratic norms, this review aims
\nto evaluate the robustness of liberal democracies in safeguarding fundamental
\nrights amidst growing national security imperatives, thus contributing to
\nbroader discussions on the vitality and resilience of liberal democratic
\nprinciples in contemporary societies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

Book of choice: <\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

PRIMARY SOURCE! ESSAY THESIS AND MAIN IDEAS MUST BE
\nDRAWN FROM THIS BOOK but all other sources can be used to support ideas. <\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S.
\nSurveillance State<\/span><\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

by
\nGlenn Greenwald<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

IT IS AVAILABLE ON ANNAS ARCHIVE IF NEEDED but I did attach
\na PDF copy of the book to the files. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

other course sources that can be used to support: <\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Documentary:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Citizenfour
\n(linked in D2L also available on YouTube, Crave or HBO)<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Interview:<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Edward
\nSnowden on Joe Rogan Experience #1536<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Available
\non Spotify<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Interview: <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

MSNBC
\nInterview with Edward Snowden (2019): https:\/\/youtu.be\/e9yK1QndJSM?si=oftEU9j_3d2erQrB<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Reading:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Case: United
\nStates v. Moalin<\/i> (2020) linked below with description of assigned
\nsections of the website and case to read.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Solove,
\nDaniel, J. (2011). \u201cThe War Powers Argument and the Rule of Law\u201d (ch. 9)
\nin Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security<\/i>,
\nYale University Press, pp. 81-91, Link: https:\/\/ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca\/lib\/ucalgary-ebooks\/reader.action?docID=3420710&ppg=92<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Solove,
\nDaniel, J. (2011). \u201cThe Fourth Amendment and the Secrecy Program\u201d (ch. 10)
\nin Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security<\/i>,
\nYale University Press, pp. 93-101. Link: https:\/\/ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca\/lib\/ucalgary-ebooks\/reader.action?docID=3420710&ppg=104<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Media
\nCommentary<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Stoppard,
\nT. (Dec. 10, 2013). State Surveillance of personal data: what is the society we
\nwish to protect? The Guardian<\/i>.
\nhttps:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2013\/dec\/10\/state-surveillance-data-tom-stoppard<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Reitman,
\nJ. (Dec. 4, 2013). Snowden and Greenwald: The men who leaked the secrets. Rolling
\nStone<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Link: https:\/\/www.rollingstone.com\/culture\/culture-news\/snowden-and-greenwald-the-men-who-leaked-the-secrets-104970\/<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Geist,
\nM. (2015). Citizen Four and the Canadian surveillance story. Michael
\nGeist.<\/i> https:\/\/www.michaelgeist.ca\/2015\/02\/citizen-four-canadian-surveillace-story\/<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Satter,
\nR. (Sept. 2, 2020) U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was
\nillegal https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-usa-nsa-spying-idUSKBN25T3CK<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Risen,
\nJ. (Dec. 23, 2020). \u201cSnowden and Assange deserve pardons. So do the
\nwhistleblowers Trump imprisoned.\u201d The Intercept<\/i>. https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2020\/12\/23\/assange-snowden-whistleblower-pardons-espionage\/<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Greenwald.
\nG. (Dec. 14, 2020) The case for a pardon of Edward Snowden by President
\nTrump. Substack<\/i>. https:\/\/greenwald.substack.com\/p\/the-case-for-a-pardon-of-edward-snowden<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

OTHER EXTERNAL SOURCES ALLOWED \u2013 MUST BE ACADEMIC PEER-REVIWED
\n<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Format<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Your critical book review should be 2000 \u2013 2,500 words (double-spaced,
\n12pt font, 2cm margins) using APA format for Citations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

DUE: March 29, 2024 via Dropbox in D2L @ 23:59 Late
\nassignments may be deducted by one letter grade (e.g. from A to A-) for every
\n24-hour period, or part thereof, that they are late.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Guidelines<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduce your critical analysis that by setting out your
\nthesis. You should avoid presenting your<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

critical book review as a laundry list of points. Instead,
\nyou should aim for a synthesized critique<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

of the book.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Begin your writing with a thesis based on your overall
\nevaluation. A strong thesis acknowledges<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

strengths and limitations of the book (if any). Critique is
\nnot negative commentary.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Brief Summary<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

You must provide a very short summary of how the book is
\nstructured and describe the evidence relied upon to advance the book\u2019s overall
\narguments. If your book is a first-hand account of an experience, you\u2019ll want
\nto explain why this first-hand experience is important and where it fits in the
\nbroader landscape on the topic. This is a very brief section of the critique.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples for brief summary:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

–      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Douglas Murray is a British journalist and
\npolitical commentator\u2026\u201d. [Pro-tip: use the book\u2019s dust cover or jacket and do a
\nbit of research \u2013 avoid Wikipedia unless you fact check those claims].<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

–      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u201cThe purpose of Murray\u2019s book it to lay out how
\nacademics, media, and political elites have undermined Western enlightenment
\nvalues.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

–      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Use quotations to illustrate: \u201cThe anti-Western
\nrevisionists have been out in force in recent years,\u201d he writes in the run-up
\nto a chapter on history.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

–      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span>\u201cAmong
\nthe strongest chapters of the book are those detailing\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

–      
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u201cAt times the writing is overly polemic,
\nglossing over important\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Use your judgement. A paragraph should suffice for this
\nsection to provide the reader with a<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

general sense of the book. Sometimes people start with this
\nas their first paragraph and then give their thesis as the second and third
\nparagraphs \u2013 it\u2019s up to you. Ask me if you are unclear as to how to start. I\u2019m
\nhappy to help. If you introduce the author before your thesis and outline of
\nthe essay it should be no more than a paragraph \u2013 ideally you integrate your
\ndescription of the author and their arguments into your thesis statement.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Thesis Statement & Roadmap<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Aim to provide your reader with your conclusions about the
\nauthor\u2019s main purpose in writing the book and their argument(s) followed by
\nyour overall reaction to the book in your introduction. The aim is to contextualize
\nthe book in a broader landscape. It\u2019s weird, I know, to put your conclusion in
\nthe introduction of your review, but this is how it is done when it is done
\nwell. Another way to think about this is to say: A thesis is a conclusion, and
\nit must be presented in your introduction. Following the brief description of
\nyour thesis you\u2019ll then want a formal roadmap for your essay \u2013 introduce the
\nreader to the purpose of the writing and an outline of what will follow in the
\nessay. Note that there is no such thing as a 5-paragraph essay in university level
\nwriting. In many ways your roadmap is the most important section of your essay
\nas it lays the groundwork for what follows in the writing. If you fail to
\nexecute this well, the rest of your essay will suffer.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to your writing skills and execution of a proper
\nreferencing format, your work will be<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

evaluated on the strength of your critical analysis and how
\nwell you integrate course themes and materials into your writing. Aim for 70%
\nof the writing to demonstrate critical analysis (critique is not negative
\ncommentary, but an analysis of an argument in light of the evidence the author
\nuses to persuade their reader tested against the knowledge gained throughout
\nthe course on the topic under analysis). Instead of simply summarizing the book
\nyour aim will be to evaluate the book\u2019s content, demonstrate critical thinking
\nby identifying strengths and weaknesses, and to foster a deeper understanding
\nof the complex topic in your reader. Your critique should contribute to the ongoing
\nconversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations on the
\ntopic using an existing body of knowledge on the topic. Provide your own
\nreactions and critical opinions regarding the work demonstrating knowledge
\nacquired from your course materials, lectures and independent learning on the
\ntopic (see supplementary materials). In order to do this well, you must
\ndemonstrate your knowledge of the overall issue to your reader through
\nreferences to the book\u2019s content and broader writing on the topic.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The main body of the writing should analyze the content of
\nthe book in more depth. You must<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

choose which issues to focus on as you cannot possibly
\nevaluate every issue raised in any book.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Use purposeful categories to help structure this more
\nin-depth section of your book review. You<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

can think about the author\u2019s methodology of investigating
\nthe issue (first person reporting, third party interviews, documentary
\nevidence, comparative history, policy analysis, legal analysis and commentary
\netc.), evidence (types of documents or statements from sources to support position),
\nlogic (do the conclusions follow from the evidence provided? Is there something
\nmissing that would refute those conclusions?), and finally the author\u2019s overall
\nconclusion (Does the author suggest policy changes, legal remedies, cultural
\nremedies, less censorship\/more censorship, greater security state interventions
\nor less?). More importantly, explain to your reader how the facts and arguments
\npresented in the book fit within the broader landscape of debate on the topic?
\nDoes the book illustrate or support specific legal issues and problems? You can
\ndecide which of the many issues raised in the book to focus on in your writing.
\nThe aim will be to justify this focus as important for your reader to
\nunderstand. The choices you make about what to highlight as important for your
\nreader to know matter. Providing some depth of analysis allows you to focus on
\ncertain key aspects of the work either by focusing on a few chapters that best
\nillustrate the arguments or choosing passages the best illustrate how the
\nargument develops throughout the book. You may also use quotations or
\nparaphrasing from the readings and tie these to any similar or divergent points
\nmade by the author of the book. You may also choose passages that illustrate
\nsome weaknesses in the author\u2019s argument (and these should bolster your
\nconclusions). You are attempting to persuade your reader to interpret and
\nunderstand the book the way that you see it. At minimum you are asking your
\nreader to consider your analysis of the work in light of course themes and
\nreadings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Overall, your analysis should aim to inform the reader about
\nthe issues at stake (as examples,<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

legal due process protections and\/or justifications made
\npowerful political actors to thwart the<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

rule of law, role of free press in holding power to account,
\nrole of whistleblowers to expose war<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

crimes). You should offer your own informed analysis of
\nthese issues using course materials (or<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

other academic sources that you find relevant \u2013 but it is
\nnot necessary to go beyond the course<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

readings. You are free to do so as long as your sources are
\nrelevant to the topic under analysis).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

You should aim to integrate your description and analysis of
\nthe book drawing examples from<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

individual chapters to illustrate both the author\u2019s views,
\nand your own critical analysis of these<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

views using references to course readings and other
\nmaterials. Use direct quotations or paraphrasing. The goal is to integrate
\ndescription and analysis cohesively in your writing. Critiques can sometimes be
\ndifficult because they are much more than mere summaries of the book\u2019s topic.
\nGood critique unfolds at two levels: 1) you give an accurate description and
\nanalysis of the work; and 2) you give your own critical commentary on the book
\ndrawing from your own considered knowledge of the issue. Most importantly,
\nyou\u2019ll draw upon course materials and discussions that unfold during the
\nlectures, the documentaries, and relevant media commentary, lectures or
\ninterviews of the authors to provide an in-dept description and analysis of the
\npertinent socio-legal issues the book raises.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Other sources<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

You can look at reviews of the book to get a sense of the
\nreaction(s) the book provoked and the<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

ways in which it was received by a wider audience (See
\nguidelines on the use of generative AI<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

below). Students fall down when they fail to cite these
\nreviews \u2013 remember other students also<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

rely upon these reviews and will cite the source. If you do
\nnot cite the source of your ideas gained from other authors, you risk being
\nfaulted for academic misconduct. In reading these reviews pay attention to the
\npublication and source (venue and author) and whether they are giving an accurate
\nrepresentation of the book. This is especially true of generative AI since the
\nrobots are scanning the interwebs and collating materials written by humans to
\nproduce what seems like original ideas (they are not). Typically, these reviews
\nare not critical book reviews in the academic sense, but they can give you an
\nidea of the relevance of the work to wider audiences and some common criticisms
\nof the works. Make an effort to develop your own thinking and your own criticisms
\n\u2013 general reviewers are writing for a wider audience, rather than academic
\naudiences informed of the social, legal and political debates on state power
\nand law. If you are looking for better legal analyses of the issues look to
\nnewsletters, blogs or magazines written by and for legal specialists in the
\nfield.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Avoid Strawman Fallacy<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Weak writing presents a strawman position on the author\u2019s
\nthesis and then attempts to show<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

how the author\u2019s position (as presented in the strawman
\nversion) is flawed. The strawman<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

argument would fall into a broad class of \u2018fallacies of
\nrelevance,\u2019 generically meaning \u2018missing the point.\u2019 See here and here for
\ninformation on the strawman fallacy and other logical fallacies. This type of
\nlazy writing fails to address the issue in question; merely taking the
\nopportunity to grind an axe. You can identify the strawman approach when
\nsomeone is refuting an argument not presented by their opponent. Good writing
\ntakes a \u2018steel- man\/woman the argument\u2019 approach by presenting the best version
\nof the author\u2019s position and then engages with that position in good faith.
\nStrive to engage with the arguments in good faith, drawing out where you have points
\nof agreement and\/or disagreement. Ignore book reviews or writing that engages
\nin strawman style argumentation or those that attack the character of the
\nauthor. Relying directly on someone else\u2019s interpretation of the argument is
\nsometimes ill-advised since they may not be accurately representing the
\nauthor\u2019s position (again, see strawman fallacy links above).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Evaluation<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Your writing will be assessed on the quality of your writing
\n(including correct use of formatting)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

and on your ability to inform the reader as to the nature of
\nthe author\u2019s argument as well as your ability to draw connections to course
\nthemes\/materials to provide context and analysis of the issues raised in the
\nbook. Judicious use of quotations from the book will strengthen your critical analysis
\n(and help to avoid strawman-style argumentation described above). When you make
\nclaims about a strength or a weakness of the book, you must give examples from
\nthe book ideally using direct quotations (not ones that are cherry-picked or
\ntaken out of context).  <\/span>Strong writing subjects
\nan author\u2019s argument to critical analysis by linking it to broader societal and
\nlegal issues using direct evidence throughout. A student who provides no
\nsummary, no discernible thesis and no justification for the roadmap followed
\ncannot hope to achieve higher than a C grade on his or her writing. Similarly,
\nstudents who merely describe at length a range of facts or ideas found in the
\nbook cannot hope to secure a grade above a C+. It makes no difference how well
\nthe work is written and referenced, if you merely describe a range of facts
\nfound in the book, you are not engaging in critical analysis and cannot secure
\ntop marks.<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

I HAVE ALSO ATTACHED MORE IN-DEPTH INFORMATION ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Law and Society 415 – Critical Book Review Writing a Critical Book Review A critical review is more than a simple summary or an expression of preference (like\/dislike). It is an analysis and evaluation of the book using appropriate criteria. It comments on and evaluates the work in light of the specific issues and concerns […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[74],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/17727"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/17727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=17727"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=17727"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=17727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}