Review ing "Defending the uUndefendable"

Or this is just as good: A review of "Defending the Undefendable"

Normally we quote book titles and capitalize all the nouns.

4/5, tThe book is principally it´s about to generate debate on topics likesuch as prostitution, drug selling drugs, children´s w labork, bribery, blackmail, etc.

I don't know what 4/5 means

Or you could write "Principally the book is to..."

You can use "like" in the way you did, and we do that all the time, but in more formal writing we normally write "such as" instead of "like".

We use the phrases "drug dealing" or "selling drugs". We never use the phrase "drug selling" (although there is nothing grammatically wrong with it, and it is quite understandable).

Also the term we normally use for employing children is "child labor".

Putting people that we use to look as they weresee as disgraceful, and the generators of evil and disgrace in society, in an exaggerated heroic positions.

Because "disgraceful" is not as bad as "the generators of evil", it sounds better to put the worse one second; I don't know why, or how to explain that.

"in an exaggerated heroic position" is okay, I think, but I would use plural, because the subject is people, and I think they are various people (you said in prostitution, and selling drugs), so I speculate they are being put into different positions in the book (but I haven't read it).

Before reading it I was very surprised to know that it was published in the '70s since a lot of those problems are validate even in actuality,now, and that makes me think about the little change that we have actually made in those situations, the lecture. The book proposes a controversial point of view about everything and it´'s curious that the reflection of the author is based only ion the perspective of the free market, n. Nevertheless, after debatiscussing with more people I noticed that some of his arguments aren´'t enoughsufficient according to the social reality, and some of his future scenarios, based obviously in suppositions, would end in failure.

Saying "in actuality" means in reality as opposed to in imagination or in a movie.

Here you mean "in current times" or "now" or "in the present day", meaning in our current time period (as opposed to earlier).

You wouldn't say "the lecture" unless this book is a transcribed lecture; a lecture is a spoken presentation. (I don't know this book; it might be a series of lectures transcribed into a book.)

We use "to debate" when we are discussing from disagreeing points of view.

Where you used "enough", the meaning is right, but "sufficient" is the word we would normally use here.

Beyond that I consider that that´s the mission of the book, to get you out of the centrist or indifferent position that we usually assume in the presence of topics that don´t have any solution or in which we have a fixed and “unbreakable” idea according to usof our own and, at least in my opinion, it gets itaccomplishes this, so it was a good lecturebook.

"According to us" sounds odd here, and I wasn't sure what it meant, but I guess it meant the "fixed idea" was belonging to us.

"It accomplishes this" could be said as "it gets this done", but that is more informal, and would be more likely in spoken English.