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
OA is E
Book review
This topic has expert replies
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:52 pm
- Location: Dallas
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:1 members
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
Need not be. reviewer judges novelist in each of his/her novel
(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
it is possible that book reviewer does not know city really well but novelist knows atleast more than reviewer knows
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
no evidence
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
premise does not support
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
true.. as premise specifies.. "I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do"
Need not be. reviewer judges novelist in each of his/her novel
(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
it is possible that book reviewer does not know city really well but novelist knows atleast more than reviewer knows
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
no evidence
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
premise does not support
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
true.. as premise specifies.. "I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do"
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:39 pm
- Location: Delhi
- Thanked: 2 times
Considering author's statement "I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do"
we can only safely conclude that both author and the writer of the new book know San Francisco to the same level isn't it too much to conclude E.
"The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does"
we can only safely conclude that both author and the writer of the new book know San Francisco to the same level isn't it too much to conclude E.
"The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does"