Yes, but making that point, sarcastically or otherwise, ratuer contradicts the main thesis of “billionares are a group that thinks alike and spends most of their time trying to grow their fortunes”. Sarcasm isn’t about stating a thesis and then contradicting it with your very first argument.
It’s astounding how badly apparently a lot of people are failing to read here.
To be very slightly fair I suppose the sentence fragmentation doesn’t help? It should read “a dishonest premise: that billionaires” but, like, the wording wouldn’t change. It’s very clear and not at all ambiguous that the reviewer considers the book’s premise dishonest.
Yes, but making that point, sarcastically or otherwise, ratuer contradicts the main thesis of “billionares are a group that thinks alike and spends most of their time trying to grow their fortunes”. Sarcasm isn’t about stating a thesis and then contradicting it with your very first argument.
Go back and reread. The reviewer is restating the book’s premise, not their own.
Jesus, am I getting trolled here?
It’s astounding how badly apparently a lot of people are failing to read here.
To be very slightly fair I suppose the sentence fragmentation doesn’t help? It should read “a dishonest premise: that billionaires” but, like, the wording wouldn’t change. It’s very clear and not at all ambiguous that the reviewer considers the book’s premise dishonest.