This text is very well-suited for self-directed learning, as it has answers to many of the exercises in an appendix at the end of the book. Having said that, I generally found the chapter examples sufficient for understanding. This may be partially explained by being a fast learner but I think the presentation is pretty decent for the most part.
The typesetting conventions are fairly typical of recent textbooks; while I don't really like said conventions, this book has to its credit less clutter than many of its contemporaries, at least from where I see things. (Could be biased.)
One area that was tricky, and I feel sorry for the authors, is the coverage of concepts of quantum chemistry. It's a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: many of the readers (myself included) are not presently interested in a gaining a comprehensive understanding of quantum physics and, at the same time, glossing over the details still leads to confusion. While I walked away with less than perfect information in this area, I'm hard-pressed to think of any realistic suggestions to improve on the presentation given its aims and target audience. In any case I understand these principles at least well enough to have moved on from Chapter 7 (Electronic Structure) with confidence.
Update: Having reached Chapter 15, I am noticing more and more certain errors in the problems at the end of the chapters. Here for example is the last straw that makes me want to switch to Chemistry: The Central Science instead, which, being in its 12th edition, should probably have fewer such errors, Problem 15.103(b):
[Which of each of pair of acids is stronger? Why?]
H2S, H2Se
Answer given is that "H2Se; within a period, acidity increases with increasing electronegativity."
Now I checked on Wikipedia and H2Se is in fact more acidic than H2S. But the fact is that S and Se are not in the same period. They're in the same group. Selenium is in fact less electronegative than sulfur. But, presumably because the bond length is greater, H2Se is more acidic.
Now, I can find worse errors than that; I'm just using that one because it's fresh in my memory and I can be certain about it.
So, these errors are too much for me now. Otherwise the pedagogy is pretty good, though, so my four star rating remains. This text is just kind of raw in its 3rd edition.