How commercial fishery is putting humankind on the road with no return

This book review will be used in the final paper for this course. My final paper will be on how commercial fishery is putting humankind on the road with no return. i will attached the preliminary research proposal and bibliography here for reference. For this book review, you are to select a book that is related to the field of my topic, for example: the relationship between human and ocean animal, the dramatic declien of cod fish stock, or other related book. it will be best if the book is not one of the sources in my research proposal and bibliography, since they are mostly articles instead of book. Here are the instruction from the professor for the book review: Guidelines for Book Reviews The purpose of a book review is to evaluate the book for your reader. It is not the same as a book report. It has to tell the reader what the book is about, but does not just summarize; it has to tell the reader what you thought of the book, but does not just present your feelings or opinions. It analyzes the book. The kinds of questions a review asks and answers will depend on the type of book and on the audience. Content: A book review consists of two components, descriiption and analysis. You need not do one and then the other; often the best reviews interweave the two throughout. You may not be able to address explicitly all the questions below. Descriiption should be more than just summary. There will need to be some summary, but in a paper of this length you need to be very careful to include only what’s really important. You should consider the following questions: What is the argument of the book? This is not the same as “what is the book about?” You need to isolate for the reader the main point the author is trying to make. How does the author support that argument? What kind of evidence does s/he use? Some examples to show how the author supports his/her points are helpful. Is it based on original research or on the research of others? What is the theoretical or disciplinary context? In other words: Where is the author coming from? Is this book written in response to a particular controversy among scholars? Is it arguing in favor of or against a particular school of thought? Does it espouse a particular methodological approach? How does it fit into its field? Who is the audience for the book? Does it presume a great deal of knowledge on the part of the reader (i.e. intended for a specialist audience) or is it something that can be read by a more general reader? Analysis is not just your opinion about the book—“I thought it was interesting” is not very useful. It is your informed evaluation of the book. You should consider the following questions: Does the author accomplish what s/he proposed to do in the book? Was that in fact a useful thing to accomplish, or is there some other approach or other questions that could have been more illuminating? Does the evidence support the author’s argument? Are there problems in the interpretation of the evidence? Is there other evidence which might change the picture? Are there logical gaps, unexamined assumptions, or issues that the author has ignored? Does it illuminate long-standing scholarly arguments? How does it change our picture of the past? What is its real contribution to the world of scholarship? What does it do especially well? What does it do especially badly? Is it well-written? (It’s probably not worth mentioning this unless the book is especially readable or unreadable; don’t dwell on it.)