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

Hi

Let us try to understand the argument first:

Let A = Book reviewer knows the city well
B = novel shows that the story teller knows the city as much as the Book reviewer does.

CASE 1: If A AND B-> take the story teller seriously -> trust the story teller & trust the tale -> increase enjoyment level of a good novel

CASE 2: If A AND NOT B -> do not trust the story teller

The book reviewer uses the above to test story tellers. It should be noted that the test does not address anything about scenarios where the book reviewer does not know a city well.

Lets analyze the last statement: Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours.
This means that Peter Lee wrote 2 novels. The second book is set in San Francisco. Lee passes the book reviewer's test in both first and second book.

This means:
Book 2: Set in San Francisco. Passes book reviewer's test (i.e. CASE 1). Therefore, the book reviewer knows San Francisco. The story teller knows San Francisco as much as the Book reviewer does.
Book 1: Set in some city. Passes book reviewer's test (i.e. CASE 1). Therefore, the book reviewer knows the city. The story teller knows the city as much as the Book reviewer does.

With this understanding, let us evaluate the options:

(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
The book reviewer says "This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel".
1. "this trust" talks about the particular trust that is gained when the story teller demonstrates that he knows the city as much as the book reviewer does.
2. "good novel" implies that the above trust -> increase enjoyment level when the novel is good. The statement does not address the scenario where the book reviewer does not consider a novel as good.
So cant infer Option A

(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 option confuses necessary & sufficient conditions. The book reviewer says "When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller". It does not say that Only when the novelist demonstrates the knowledge does he trust the story teller.
If X-> Y, we cant say that if Y occurs then X must have occured unless there is no other factor Z-> Y

(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
Wrong interpretation. Book reviewer knew the city but that does not mean that it has to be San Francisco.

(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
Cannot be inferred.
If X-> Y, we cant say that if X has not occurred Y will not occur since some other factor Z -> Y

(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
Correct answer. Peter's second novel that is set in San Francisco passes the book reviewer's test (i.e. CASE 1 - A AND B). Therefore B has occurred i.e. The story teller knows the city as much as the book reviewer does. Therefore, the book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter does.