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

A lil tricky

Source - Aristotle CR
OA - E

Crazy Man!! Most options seem correct.

(A) Trust the tale... good enjoyment. Contender.
(B) Trust the story teller does not mean Novelist is a story teller. Loser.
(C) What is there to infer. Its there in the last line of the passage. Loser.
(D) Is it necessary for a Novel to be SET in a City. Loser
(E) "When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge" that means Novelist knows all what reviewer knows + extra about the city. Contender.

I really do not find any option to choose E to A but the extreme word used inA "any novel written by a novelist".

My Pick E

It was like a head spin for me ....
dont know how much authentic is source ...but will go for option C - coz i already ~3 mins on this quuestion.

please GOD this kind of Q shd not appear to me in test... - what is the OA

shovan85 wrote:Crazy Man!! Most options seem correct.

(A) Trust the tale... good enjoyment. Contender.
(B) Trust the story teller does not mean Novelist is a story teller. Loser.
(C) What is there to infer. Its there in the last line of the passage. Loser.
(D) Is it necessary for a Novel to be SET in a City. Loser
(E) "When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge" that means Novelist knows all what reviewer knows + extra about the city. Contender.

I really do not find any option to choose E to A but the extreme word used inA "any novel written by a novelist".

My Pick E

Congratulations! You're right. Your explanation makes sense. I chose the other option btw.

puneetdua wrote:It was like a head spin for me ....
dont know how much authentic is source ...but will go for option C - coz i already ~3 mins on this quuestion.

please GOD this kind of Q shd not appear to me in test... - what is the OA

The source has compiled it from 1000CR picking only those relevant for GMAT. Anyways, take these questions only for practice. Rest assured GMAT would have different.

g000fy wrote: Congratulations! You're right. Your explanation makes sense. I chose the other option btw.

My Pleasure!! Thanks for the Questions though

g000fy 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

A lil tricky

Source - Aristotle CR
OA - E

between A and E and chose A but why arnt A? such a crazy reader.... should be A hheheheh....

In inference questions, we should always attempt to link up ideas to figure out something else that must be true. Also, we should think about what the author's point is.

The last sentence tells us that Peter Lee passed the book reviewer's test with flying colors. What was the book reviewer's test? It was described in the first sentence. Putting these two sentences together, we see that the book reviewer feels that Peter Lee knows San Francisco as well as she does. Thus, it can be inferred that she doesn't believe that she knows San Franciso better than Peter Lee does. Thus, choice E is a proper inference.

We know that this trust increases her enjoyment of a good novel. This certainly doesn't mean that the book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts. Thus, choice A is an extreme proposition and cannot be inferred.

Both choices B and D invite you to commit the same flaw: to treat a relativism as an absolute. In the stimulus, the book reviewer compares how well she knows any given city to her judgment about how well she thinks the author knows any given city. She can do this with or without actually knowing any given city well in absolute terms. Thus, neither of choice B or D can be inferred.

There is absolutely nothing in the passage that lets us figure anything out about what city Peter Lee's first book was set in. Thus, choice C is outside the scope of the passage, and cannot be inferred.

Testluv wrote: There is absolutely nothing in the passage that lets us figure anything out about what city Peter Lee's first book was set in. Thus, choice C is outside the scope of the passage, and cannot be inferred.

Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Does not this last statement says so? His first novel set in San Francisco. I thought it is there in the passage then what is there to infer so discarded C.

shovan85 wrote:

Testluv wrote: There is absolutely nothing in the passage that lets us figure anything out about what city Peter Lee's first book was set in. Thus, choice C is outside the scope of the passage, and cannot be inferred.

Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Does not this last statement says so? His first novel set in San Francisco. I thought it is there in the passage then what is there to infer so discarded C.

Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the last sentence. What is similar about both of his novels is that they both passed the book reviewer's test--not that they were both set in San Francisco.

Testluv wrote:

shovan85 wrote:

Testluv wrote: There is absolutely nothing in the passage that lets us figure anything out about what city Peter Lee's first book was set in. Thus, choice C is outside the scope of the passage, and cannot be inferred.

Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
Does not this last statement says so? His first novel set in San Francisco. I thought it is there in the passage then what is there to infer so discarded C.

Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the last sentence. What is similar about both of his novels is that they both passed the book reviewer's test--not that they were both set in San Francisco.

Thanks!! Still I am not able figure out this pattern of writing. So confusing.

Well, I wouldn't worry too much about that last sentence: either the OP or the secondary source didn't transcribe it from the original source perfectly.