1) Faithfully represent the author’s argument. Here you have little latitude in your argument. There is typically just one correct interpretation and many wrong interpretations.
2) Present an original and analytically rigorous argument about the author’s argument. Here you lots of latitude in your argument. You could argue that the argument falls to pieces because of unsound assumptions or logical fallacies. You could argue that the author’s review of evidence is flawed. You could argue that the normative implications of the book are [terrible, wonderful, equivoval . . . ]. You could argue. . . Well, this is up to you. But once you present your argument, the reader of your paper and audience of your presentation should only be able have one interpretation of what your argument is.
3) You should adhere to the criteria for good writing that I will upload.
The book required: The Twilight of Human Rights Law by Eric Posner.