Answer should be E. It directly follows from "I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do"
_________________

Kudos Please... If my post helped.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1

Dont you think A is out of scope and takes too much of a strong stance??
_________________

Kudos Please... If my post helped.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1

I would like to eliminate the answer choices as mentioned in Powerscore....
A. It is eliminated since it exaggerates the reviewers thought.
B. Its a trap and attractive answer choice it conjugates an analogy presented by the reviewr with the fact which she presents.
C. A completely new info which does not fall within the scope.
D. Trap and shell game, the reviewer does not trusts the novelist and not the novel.
E. Correct answer choice.
It is sum of 2 premises
"I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously" + "Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours."
However a few may object saying that it is an implication but its within the scope.....................

What argument says : 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.

According to the argument good knowledge is the indicator of trust. i.e Good knowledge is the cause and trust is the effect

Choice 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

This choice wrongly makes trust an indicator of something. i.e It wrongly makes trust a cause. A book set in a city the author knows well just provides a stage for the author to gauge whether the book is trustworty or not. This is just one scale that the author uses to verify how trustworthy the book is. The author might even have another criteria.

eg : Maybe he also trusts all books written in greek. All greek books need not necessarily have been set in a town he knows well.
_________________

Kudos Please... If my post helped.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1

But what is the implication of this:
"I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously".
Don't you think "knowing the city just as him" becomes the necessary condition?
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting

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

The paragraph only says that trust enhances the reviewers appreciation of a good novel. Who knows if trust will affect the reviewers reaction to a mediocre 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

The paragraph only says that the reviewer trusts a novelist if that novelist knows a city as well as the reviewer does.

(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco

There is no way we can infer this from the passage.

(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well

The reviewer's trust relates to the novelist's familiarity with a city, not the degree of familiarity of that either has of that city. To illustrate, the reviewer may only have a passing familiarity with Berlin, but as long as the novelist he is reading is more familiar with Berlin than the reviewer, the reviewer will trust the novelist.

(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does

If the reviewer (who apparently is a she ) knew San Francisco better than Peter Lee, she would not trust Peter Lee's account. Notice, "I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously." Therefore, we can safely infer (E).
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Please see my reply : book-review-when-i-read-a-novel-set-in-a-city-i-know-well-143673.html#p1185830
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN