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
~close b/w B or E. OA[spoiler]-E... what's wrong with B.[/spoiler].pl explain in brief. thanks.
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
~close b/w B or E. OA[spoiler]-E... what's wrong with B.[/spoiler].pl explain in brief. thanks.
