The proof behind Carnot's upper limit posed on the efficiency of heat engines is more robust than this. The quotes you've pasted are among the various statements of the second law of thermodynamics. Here I'll sketch for you some of the ideas of the proof, mainly to show where these formulations (related to Carnot) of the second principle come from. Inevitably I'll repeat most of the things you probably already know, but they're repeated more for discussion purposes. Towards the end I'll touch on your two main questions more closely.
The main question raised by Carnot way basically that: from the second principle we already know that it is impossible to build a thermal engine working only with a single heat bath. So then, the question became: what is the maximal amount of work that we can achieve with a thermal engine working reversibly between two heat paths, with which it can exchange heat?
Now from a purely schematic point of view, we know that one such engine should be described by a thermodynamic cycle maximizing the area under the curve in the PV diagram! So Carnot set out to come up with a thermodynamic cycle that satisfies this. Remember that the net useful work provided by the system is equal to the area enclosed by one closed cycle, so intuitively we already have an idea of the type of expansions and compressions the cycle should be made of: i.e. the cost of compression being minimised by compressing at cold (lowest $T$), and the expansion yielding the maximum amount of work by expanding at hot (highest $T$), hence the choices of the main two reversible (no form of loss whatsoever, no entropy production) isothermal compression and expansion parts of the Carnot cycle. Here's the PV diagram taken from wikipedia ("Carnot cycle p-V diagram". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons):
A quick reminder of each step involved along with the work/heat provided to outside (minus sign) or received (plus sign):
1 to 2: reversible isothermal expansion, $T=T_1,$ $V_1 \to V_2,$ $W_1 = -RT_1 \ln{V_2/V_1}$ and $Q_1 = RT_1 \ln{V_2/V_1},$ no internal energy change, $Q=-W$
2 to 3: cooling the working agent via a reversible adiabatic expansion, internal energy reduced only via work, $Q_2=0,$ $V_2 \to V_3,$ $T_1 \to T_2$ and $W_2 = C_v (T_2-T_1)$
3 to 4: reversible isothermal compression at cold $T=T_2,$ $V_3 \to V_4,$ $W_3 = -RT_2 \ln{V_4/V_3}$ and $Q_3 = RT_2 \ln{V_4/V_3},$
4 to 1: heating via a reversible adiabatic compression: $T_2 \to T_1,$ $V_4 \to V_1,$ $Q_4 = 0$ and $W_4 = C_v (T_1-T_2)$
All the ingredients there to calculate the thermal efficiency $\eta_{Carnot}$, given by the net work provided by the system to environment divided by the total received heat during one cycle (important idea is to use the adiabatic transformations to express $W$ in terms of $T_{1,2}$ and $V_{1,2}$). Once done, it should be a unique function of the two heat bath temperatures (in Kelvin):
$$
\eta_{Carnot} = \frac{T_1-T_2}{T_1}=1-\frac{T_2}{T_1}
$$
To see why any irreversible engine would have a lower efficiency, replace any of the 4 steps of the cycle by an irreversible one and re-calculate the efficiency, e.g. let's replace the 2 to 3 adiabatic expansion by an irreversible process, for our purposes a simple free expansion (see Gay-Lussac) will do, during which no work is done and $T_1$ remains constant, this process is immediately followed by another irreversible process, corresponding to the heat exchange (hence the irreversibility) with the cold bath as soon as contact is established, to reach $T_2.$ If all other 3 steps are left unaffected (i.e. reversible), the efficiency becomes:
$$
\eta = \eta_{Carnot}-\frac{C_V (T_1-T_2)}{RT_1 \ln{V_2/V_1}} < \eta_{Carnot}
$$
To further convince yourself, you can repeat the calculation for the replacement of any of the other 3 steps, by an irreversible one, and you will always find $\eta < \eta_{Carnot}.$ If you prefer, in terms of entropy, any irreversible process can be shown to have less heat flow to the system during an expansion and more heat flow out of the system during a compression, which simply means more entropy is given to environment than received from it, which consequently transforms the Clausius theorem into an inequality, i.e.
$$
\oint \frac{dQ}{dT} \leq 0
$$
Regarding your second question, the key idea is that no other engine can yield a greater efficiency than Carnot's (which conceptually we now expect it to be true, remember the earlier points on how to build a cycle that maximizes $\eta$), but this does not mean that there are no other engines with reversible transformations that cannot yield the same efficiency, take e.g. the Stirling engine (a 4 step cycle again):
For the Stirling motor you can show that the efficiency is:
\begin{align*}
\eta_{Stirling} &= \frac{R(T_1-T_2)\ln{V_2/V_1}}{RT_1 \ln{V_2}{V_1}} \\
&= 1-\frac{T_2}{T_1} = \eta_{Carnot}
\end{align*}
which should convince you that Carnot's cycle is not unique. To sum up, all this leads yet to another statement of the second principle of thermodynamics: There's no machine performing a cyclic process with an efficiency greater than $\eta_{Carnot}.$
I feel there are much better ways to explain the need for reversible isothermal and adiabatic processes in the Carnot cycle than the way it is explained in your book. But since you have to deal with the material you have, I will attempt to clarify what they are saying.
Regarding the first bullet, you start with the requirement that a Carnot cycle only exchanges heat with two fixed temperature thermal reservoirs. The second requirement is that the heat transfers must be reversible. That means the temperature of the system has to be essentially the same as the reservoir during the process, i.e., the system temperature has to be constant. The only process where heat transfer occurs reversibly with the system temperature constant is a reversible isothermal process.
Regarding the second bullet, to complete the cycle you need processes that link together the high and low temperature isothermal processes. In order to do this you need to lower and raise the temperature of the system. The only way to lower and raise the system temperature without transferring heat with additional heat reservoirs are with processes that don't require heat transfer. Those are reversible adiabatic processes.
Hope this helps.
Best Answer
You have to distinguish between the efficiency of a process and the efficiency of a cycle. A reversible isothermal expansion process can be 100% efficient. That does not violate the second law. It’s the efficiency of a cycle that can’t be 100%.
So, yes, if you had a one cylinder car performing a reversible isothermal expansion you could theoretically continue converting heat to work as long as the cylinder (and car containing it) keep expanding forever (they become infinitely large).
But even more importantly, since $PV=$ constant, as the volume increases the pressure, and thus the force exerted by gas, decreases. That limits the amount of work that can be done by the gas in a single expansion.
So if you want an engine of finite size that can do more work than can be done in a single expansion, you need to perform a cycle. Heat is rejected during isothermal compression making the engine efficiency less than 100%.
Hope this helps.