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 colors.
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.

aj5105 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 colors.
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.

I would go with B.

Please post the correct answer.

Narrowed down to A and B, but i'll go for B coz in A the word "any" makes me to reject that answer.

Answer please ?

IMO ---> E

book reviewer thinks that the novelist knows the city as well as he knows... he does not believe that he knows the city better than novelist...

Thanks a lot---this was a good question

was struck between B and E....but E wins ..

IMO E.

Whats the OA

B This is the only one I can infer.

Rest all choices are too far from the objective.

In A reviewer might trust the author but what if author write about a city where reviewer finds information contradictory.

I will go with E..whats the OA?

IMO - B

OA please?

I too narrowed down B and E, but selected E

The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does.

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

This doesn't mean that Reviewer trusts the storyteller only if the novel is set in the city the book reviewer knows well. She might trust the novelist for some other reason ( As she mentioned -> required knowledge)

OA please??

I would go with option B