Critical Reasoning

Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Tough one for me did a POE .. I was with E

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts - out
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well - Awkward
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco - Contender!
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well - No way
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

IMO:E

The options are not as you would expect. E fits the best for me.

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

The correct answer is E.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.nowhere is it mentioned that the reviewer believe that the author know the city as well as she does .


The correct answer is E.

But GmatGuruNY ,
the stimulus says

When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale.

Could You please elaborate a bit more . I am surely missing something since others on BTG have been able to answer this CR correctly LOL

mundasingh123 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the reviewer believe that the author know the city as well as she does .

We need to put the pieces together.
The reviewer says that LEE -- not the novel, but the AUTHOR -- passes my test with flying colors.
What is the test? I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do.
Therefore, the reviewer is saying that LEE KNOWS THE CITY AS WELL AS I DO.
Thus, answer choice E must be true: The reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

The correct answer is E.

Hi,
could you please explain what's the problem with Option B.

thnx...!!

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the reviewer believe that the author know the city as well as she does .

We need to put the pieces together.
The reviewer says that LEE -- not the novel, but the AUTHOR -- passes my test with flying colors.
What is the test? I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do.
Therefore, the reviewer is saying that LEE KNOWS THE CITY AS WELL AS I DO.
Thus, answer choice E must be true: The reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

Hi GMATGuruNY,

could you please explain problem with Option B, I am not able to figure out.

thnx..!!!

killer1387 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

Lee passes my test with flying colours = Lee knows the city AS WELL AS I DO = answer choice E: The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco BETTER than Peter Lee does.

The correct answer is E.

Hi,
could you please explain what's the problem with Option B.

thnx...!!

The passage is ONLY about the authors of novels set in a city that I [the reviewer] know well. No information is offered about the writers of other types of novels. It is quite likely that the reviewer trusts the authors of MANY other types of novels. Thus, we cannot infer that if the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question MUST be set in a city the book reviewer knows well.

Agree with E.
but what is the problem with A

Execuse me,
Can anyone explain in more details why (B) is not the correct answer ?
Thanks,

pls, help
for inference question which has stimulus which contain many information pieces. How do I approach? pls, help
we should not spend more time with the stimulus. Instead, we confirm each answer choice by rereading the stimulus.

Is that correct, Pls, comment.

My 2 cents.
B is incorrect, because it gives reverse relation.
Reviewer says, If the novel is set in a city that he knows well, he trusts the novelist. But reverse may not be true.