Authors writing detective stories frequently include a

Question

Authors writing detective stories frequently include a brilliant detective and an incompetent investigator who embark on separate paths in an attempt to solve a crime. The separate accounts frequently consist of the incompetent investigator becoming distracted by the criminals' well-planned attempts and the competent detective solving the case after a violent confrontation. Many literary analysts believe authors often choose this storyline in an attempt to provide readers additional complexity and challenge in solving the investigation.
Which of the following most logically follows from the statements above?

A) A well-written detective story consists of an investigation being undertaken by a competent and incompetent investigator.
B) Some authors use an incompetent investigator to show the complexities of an investigation.
C) Authors never write stories with incompetent investigators who solve a case correctly.
D) Authors can use the separate investigative accounts to make predicting the correct outcome of the investigation more difficult.
E) Authors write stories with competent and incompetent investigators to show the complexity of real life.

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

This is an inference question. Let's evaluate each of the given options:
A) A well-written detective story consists of an investigation being undertaken by a competent and incompetent investigator.  Clearly this does not follow from the paragraph. As per belief of literary analysts authors use this storyline  in an attempt  to provide readers additional complexity and challenge in solving the investigation, this additional complexity and challenge may not necessarily make a story well-written. Even if it does, it does not mean that all well-written detective stories should have the similar storyline. 
B) Some authors use an incompetent investigator to show the complexities of an investigation. -  Here, the main word is "show". If this word is replaced by "increase", the statement can be inferred since the presence of both competent and incompetent investigators are used to add  additional  complexity. The purpose of using an incompetent investigator is, therefore, to increase or add complexity, rather than to 'show' complexity. 
C) Authors never write stories with incompetent investigators who solve a case correctly. -  As per the 2nd line of the passage, " The separate accounts frequently consist of the... " The word frequently is used here, not always. So, there could be stories in which incompetent investigator may solve the case correctly. 
D) Authors can use the separate investigative accounts to make predicting the correct outcome of the investigation more difficult. -  It's given in the passage that separate investigative account are added to provide complexity and challenge to the reader, in solving the investigation. It's obvious that additional complexity and challenge will make it more difficult to predict the correct outcome. Thus, the use of separate investigative accounts makes predicting the correct outcome more difficult. Therefore, this option is correct. 
E) Authors write stories with competent and incompetent investigators to show the complexity of real life. -  Off track. Complexities of real life is not being talked about here.

alexkozhura · Answer

We can  eliminate A  right away, because the argument doesn't state that  all  well-written detective story have a competent and incompetent investigator.

C is also incorrect.  Variants with words like "always", "never", "all" and so on are almost always incorrect, unless the question stem uses one of them explicitly.

E is wrong  because the author doesn't mention the real life anywhere.

That leaves us with B and D. The argument states that "authors often choose this storyline in an attempt  to provide readers additional complexity and challenge in solving the investigation ." In short: they do it to puzzle the reader, not to show how puzzling the investigation is.  Hence D.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This question asks you to take the statements and draw a conclusion. One major trap in this type of question is an answer that is logical, but not supported by the statements in the stimulus.

A. The stimulus does not define what constitutes a well written story nor does it speak about what is a poorly written story. Consequently, it is difficult to make a statement like this that will logically follow from the stimulus.

B. Although this statement is probably true, it does not follow from the stimulus. Instead, the stimulus states that authors use an incompetent investigator to add complexity to the storyline (thereby making the reader's attempts to solve the case more challenging) not to show that investigations are complex.

C. While the stimulus states that stories "frequently" include an incompetent investigator who does not solve the case correctly, we cannot conclude an incompetent investigator "never" solves a case correctly.

D. This statement is quite similar to the final sentence of the stimulus and it logically follows from the stimulus. The statement that authors write in the way they do "to provide readers additional complexity and challenge in solving the investigation" provides the basis to conclude that authors write "to make predicting the correct outcome of the investigation more difficult."

E. Although this statement is probably true, there is no evidence of it in the stimulus. Instead, the stimulus indicates that the complexity is added not for its resemblance to real life but for its ability to increase the challenge posed to readers seeking to solve the case correctly.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Authors writing detective stories frequently include a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Authors writing detective stories frequently include a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards