Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 10 Mar 2014, 15:51

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well,

Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Status: Applicant
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 5

Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, [#permalink]  10 Mar 2012, 22:19
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

55% (03:15) correct 44% (02:27) wrong based on 9 sessions
Below question is from aristotle Critical reasonong set.

Question No: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

The Answer is E, Could you explain. I feel its B.
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1698
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 36

Re: Kindly explain why E is right [#permalink]  10 Mar 2012, 22:46
krissnaa1987 wrote:
Below question is from aristotle Critical reasonong set.

Question No: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

The Answer is E, Could you explain. I feel its B.

This is an inference question, which means that the conclusion drawn must be true.If the book reviewer feels that the writer knows about San Francisco as well as he/she does, then E is true. If you negate E, it implies that the writer does not rival/match the book reviewer in his/her Knowledge of the city, and thus the writer can't "pass the test with flying colors".

For B, it is obvious that the explanation is simply warped text - the reviewer never says that "the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well" for him/her to admire the writer. The reviewer says that "when the novel is set in a city" he/she knows well, which is similar to an "if" condition.

_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 106
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V37
GPA: 3.28
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 72

Re: Kindly explain why E is right [#permalink]  10 Mar 2012, 23:49
subhashghosh wrote:
krissnaa1987 wrote:
Below question is from aristotle Critical reasonong set.

Question No: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

The Answer is E, Could you explain. I feel its B.

This is an inference question, which means that the conclusion drawn must be true.If the book reviewer feels that the writer knows about San Francisco as well as he/she does, then E is true. If you negate E, it implies that the writer does not rival/match the book reviewer in his/her Knowledge of the city, and thus the writer can't "pass the test with flying colors".

For B, it is obvious that the explanation is simply warped text - the reviewer never says that "the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well" for him/her to admire the writer. The reviewer says that "when the novel is set in a city" he/she knows well, which is similar to an "if" condition.

This being an inference question, if you will apply the negation technique on E , the conclusion will go wrong . Hence E is the best and correct choice.
_________________

If you like my post, Press +1 KUDO. It is the best way to say Thanks .

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 398
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 48 [1] , given: 13

Re: Kindly explain why E is right [#permalink]  11 Mar 2012, 01:11
1
KUDOS
Let's try to break down an argument:
1) Writer Same knowledge as reviewer --> Take writer seriously
2) Writer Fake --> No trust in Writer
3) Writer Knowledgeable --> Trust Writer --> Enjoy Novel
4) First and Second Novels set in SF and enjoy novels.

(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts.
We can't infer he enjoys ANY 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
No from the argumentation diagram above, we know the if he trusts then he only ENJOYS.
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
No, we only know that the first passed the test with flying colours.
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
No, she will NOT Enjoy any novel she doesnot trust. That's it. City doesnt even feature in the equation.
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
Correct. Why? Because she trusts the writer which is because he is knowledgeable. So, how can the reader believe that he knows the novel which is based in SF more than the writer. No possible
Re: Kindly explain why E is right   [#permalink] 11 Mar 2012, 01:11
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, 13 17 May 2005, 15:16
Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, 5 20 Jan 2007, 05:24
3 Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, 9 01 Mar 2010, 10:48
Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, 1 17 Dec 2010, 06:02
Book Review : When I read a novel set in a city I know well, 13 05 Dec 2012, 23:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by