By noting this lack of argument, my intention is not to be critical. Indeed, this belongs necessarily to the phenomenological or "legomenological" mode of thinking to which this book's readers are being called and, indeed, which the book is finding already in Aristotle's texts. Long's philosophical task here is not, for instance, to identify an indubitable premise or premises on which to build an airtight deduction in order to arrive at scientific certainty. Rather, his task is the clarification of what is already appearing in these passages, an interpretation of what these passages are already saying to us.Of course, the reviewer doesn't want to be critical. That's apparently not what reviews are for. Rather, the point is to praise the book without specifying anything about its contents. Well done!
I also like how the review does us the courtesy of showing that he does not really know what an argument is. He says that the book does not engage in "argument" (understood as something strictly deductive and yet aimed at "scientific certainty"!), but rather aspires to "clarify." But apparently the envisoined clarification is possible without reasons or inference. Duh.