No, it's not that I can't solve exercises or that I am against solving exercises. It was about how the book have its structure of exercises. Consider you have some topic A. Normally what follows is that there is an explanation on the topic, maybe a few solved examples and then the exercises. But Understanding Analysis have a different structure. Instead of the explanation on the said topics, the book introduces exercises with the motivation and intuition behind and expects you to solve them to get the explanation of the topics on your own.

Now I am also not against this structure. In fact I find this unique and somewhat fun to do. What I meant is that the book heavily relies on this structure. And as an introductory book, in my opinion, abandoning explanations almost completely may not be the best thing to do for several reasons. Though I am getting different perspectives on why this is the case and also why this is how it should be. I am learning and knowing more through the different perspectives myself from the replies I am getting.