BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Aristotle LSAT CR Q 39

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:2 members

Aristotle LSAT CR Q 39

by hja379 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:27 pm
39. 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 E
Last edited by hja379 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:50 pm
E is correct.

The reviewer only trusts the writer if that writer knows the city as least as well as he does. Since Lee's book passes the test, Lee must know the city as well as the reviewer does.
Tani Wolff
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:2 members

by hja379 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:19 pm
Hi Tani,

Thanks for the explanation. Can you please explain why choice A is wrong? I thought it made more sense though it uses extreme language "virtually".

Novelist demonstrates knowledge --> Reviewer trusts the storyteller --> trusts the tale --> increases enjoyment of reading, so it should follow that the book reviewer enjoys a novel written by a novelist whom she trusts.

Thanks.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:26 pm
The stimulus says she doesn't enjoy a novel unless she trusts the author. That doesn't mean that she will enjoy any book as long as she trusts the author.

For example, saying you only enjoy a dessert if it has chocolate in it is not the same as saying you would like any dessert that has chocolate.
Tani Wolff
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: New York City
Thanked: 68 times
Followed by:37 members
GMAT Score:780

by Adam@Knewton » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:28 pm
We're told in the passage that "This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel." So, if the novel is bad, the author won't enjoy it, even if she trusts it. (A), on the other hand, implies that the trust factor is all that the author needs to enjoy a novel.

You are right to notice the word "virtually" -- this is very, very, very suspicious and should make you carefully examine this answer choice. The way I disproved it for myself is that I read back into the passage for where the author actually mentions "enjoyment" (if anywhere -- my first instinct was that it might be totally absent from the passage!). This kind of pointed re-reading can really help you eliminate answers you're suspicious of in both CR and RC.
Prep Smarter, Score Higher
www.knewton.com
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:2 members

by hja379 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:52 pm
Thank you Tani and Adam for the great explanations.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:15 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by baronbaik » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:31 pm
Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The stimulus says she doesn't enjoy a novel unless she trusts the author. That doesn't mean that she will enjoy any book as long as she trusts the author.

For example, saying you only enjoy a dessert if it has chocolate in it is not the same as saying you would like any dessert that has chocolate.
Is it possible for the reviewer to believe she knows SF as good as Peter Lee? It would be easier for me to accept (E) if the prompt read: "... writer knows the city better than I do..." instead of "... writer knows the city as well as I do..."

Thanks
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:58 pm
The author can certainly believe she knows the city as well as, better than or less well than does Peter Lee. It is simply the writer's judgment and not necessarily true. We are asked to deal only with what the writer thinks.
Tani Wolff
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:15 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by baronbaik » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:21 pm
Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The author can certainly believe she knows the city as well as, better than or less well than does Peter Lee. It is simply the writer's judgment and not necessarily true. We are asked to deal only with what the writer thinks.
Thanks for the clarification. I had to re-read the prompt a couple of times, but I think I got it.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1