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

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

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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...!!