Last visit was: 14 Jul 2025, 01:45 It is currently 14 Jul 2025, 01:45
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
805+ Level|   Inference|            
avatar
temuchin
Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Last visit: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
64
 [53]
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 3
Kudos: 64
 [53]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
45
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,106
Own Kudos:
74,310
 [23]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,106
Kudos: 74,310
 [23]
18
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
ab2014
Joined: 16 May 2014
Last visit: 27 Oct 2017
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
73
 [7]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 11
Kudos: 73
 [7]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
avatar
DesiGmat
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Last visit: 06 Feb 2021
Posts: 174
Own Kudos:
234
 [4]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88
Posts: 174
Kudos: 234
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Solved it in less than a minute.
If you read between lines, Options A, B and D are extreme options.
Look for the words 'ONLY', 'ANY' etc.
Generally, the extreme statements are not correct in GMAT.
Option C is picked from the argument. (remember it's an inference question).

Hence, option E is correct.
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 21 Apr 2025
Posts: 5,965
Own Kudos:
5,157
 [1]
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 5,965
Kudos: 5,157
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
YangYichen
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 colors.

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.

Story teller knows the city as much as Reviewer knows the city----> Trust the story Teller & Story---->Enjoy reading the Novel.
Fake Story Teller -------------> No trust in the story teller.

Among the given options only (E) flows from the passage...
User avatar
YangYichen
Joined: 05 Oct 2016
Last visit: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Location: China
Concentration: Healthcare, Entrepreneurship
WE:Sales (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Posts: 55
Kudos: 206
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Abhishek009
YangYichen
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 colors.

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.

Story teller knows the city as much as Reviewer knows the city----> Trust the story Teller & Story---->Enjoy reading the Novel.
Fake Story Teller -------------> No trust in the story teller.

Among the given options only (E) flows from the passage...
but the reviewer only say Lee knows the city as well as he does. it can't be inferred that he knows the city less than Lee.
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 21 Apr 2025
Posts: 5,965
Own Kudos:
5,157
 [1]
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 5,965
Kudos: 5,157
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
YangYichen
but the reviewer only say Lee knows the city as well as he does. it can't be inferred that he knows the city less than Lee.

Consider the highlighted part carefully here -

Quote:
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 colors.

If Knowledge of Lee > Knowledge of Reviewer
If Knowledge of Lee < Knowledge of Reviewer

If Knowledge of Lee = Knowledge of Reviewer

So, you see the scenario gets restricted to only the 3rd scenario, any any deviation from it can not be inferred...

Check option (E)

Option (E) negates the possibility of scenario 2 , hence this clearly follows from the stimulus and we can correctly infer this....

Hope this helps !!
User avatar
auradediligodo
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2021
Posts: 364
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 67
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?



Inference question

Pre-thinking

Here we can make lots of inferences:
Inference #1: While reading the novel, the reviewer's enjoyment increased.
Inference #2: Peter Lee did not fake.
Inference #3: The novelist demonstrated the required knowledge
Inference #4: The novelists knows equally or more of San Francisco than the reviewer
Inference #5: The reviewer trusts the novelist
Inference #6/7/8/9/10: All the inferences made for the second novel apply as well to the first novel


POE:


(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
The argument says that trust increases the enjoyment but not that it causes it

(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
not a must be true statement

(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
can't be inferred

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

(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
In line with pre-thought inference #4

User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,309
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,309
Kudos: 929
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am confused with B and E

Quote:
I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
She can trust when she knows more than writer. Otherwise if a writer writes something and she doesnot know about it, how can she trust? Is not it?


Quote:
When I read a novel set in a city I know well, When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller
(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

As per paragraph, book reviewer trust the novel if it is set in city reviewer knows well. If it is not set in city she knows , we can not infer. Option B only talks within scope, so why no B.

I know I am wrong somewhere. Please help me to correct what ugly mistake I am doing.

Please suggest VeritasKarishma AndrewN sir
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,373
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,373
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
I am confused with B and E

Quote:
I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
She can trust when she knows more than writer. Otherwise if a writer writes something and she doesnot know about it, how can she trust? Is not it?


Quote:
When I read a novel set in a city I know well, When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller
(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

As per paragraph, book reviewer trust the novel if it is set in city reviewer knows well. If it is not set in city she knows , we can not infer. Option B only talks within scope, so why no B.

I know I am wrong somewhere. Please help me to correct what ugly mistake I am doing.

Please suggest VeritasKarishma AndrewN sir
Yes, imSKR, I can see that you are confused. You singled out the correct line from the passage to support (E). If the writer knows the city in question as well as the reviewer, then they are equal in their knowledge of that city, so it is appropriate to say that the reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does. Note that if you saw at least ahead of as well as in the passage, such language would imply that the author might know more than the reviewer. Either way, though, choice (E) would hold.

Regarding choice (B), once again, you singled out the correct line of the passage. You may have overlooked the first word, however: when. This helps us understand that the reviewer is commenting on only one type of work that she reads. The rest of the information in the passage relates to this subset of novels, but we cannot say that just because the reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, she, the reviewer, must be reading a novel set in a familiar city. The reviewer might be reading some other type of novel for which we have no established criteria in the passage. Perhaps she can enjoy a fantasy tale, for instance, without adhering to the same rigid set of conditions she would apply to the type of novel in question.

I hope that helps. My advice? Stick to the surface of what the passage says. When you start getting twisted up in could-be-true conditions, you will find yourself in real trouble on these LSAT questions. (I said something similar in this recent response to another LSAT question.)

Happy reading, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,309
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,309
Kudos: 929
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
imSKR
I am confused with B and E

Quote:
I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
She can trust when she knows more than writer. Otherwise if a writer writes something and she doesnot know about it, how can she trust? Is not it?


Quote:
When I read a novel set in a city I know well, When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller
(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

As per paragraph, book reviewer trust the novel if it is set in city reviewer knows well. If it is not set in city she knows , we can not infer. Option B only talks within scope, so why no B.

I know I am wrong somewhere. Please help me to correct what ugly mistake I am doing.

Please suggest VeritasKarishma AndrewN sir
Yes, imSKR, I can see that you are confused. You singled out the correct line from the passage to support (E). If the writer knows the city in question as well as the reviewer, then they are equal in their knowledge of that city, so it is appropriate to say that the reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does. Note that if you saw at least ahead of as well as in the passage, such language would imply that the author might know more than the reviewer. Either way, though, choice (E) would hold.

Regarding choice (B), once again, you singled out the correct line of the passage. You may have overlooked the first word, however: when. This helps us understand that the reviewer is commenting on only one type of work that she reads. The rest of the information in the passage relates to this subset of novels, but we cannot say that just because the reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, she, the reviewer, must be reading a novel set in a familiar city. The reviewer might be reading some other type of novel for which we have no established criteria in the passage. Perhaps she can enjoy a fantasy tale, for instance, without adhering to the same rigid set of conditions she would apply to the type of novel in question.

I hope that helps. My advice? Stick to the surface of what the passage says. When you start getting twisted up in could-be-true conditions, you will find yourself in real trouble on these LSAT questions. (I said something similar in this recent response to another LSAT question.)

Happy reading, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

I read your tips several times today. I realized my mistakes . After applying your tip, the question seemed very easy . It was just a matter of key words to differentiate between B and E.
I will not over generalized any more ( hope so my mind supports the same).
Thanks for highlighting the mistake I was doing( now that mistake seems silly as someone asks to pick a thing from top of table and i can not see there.)
User avatar
TheGraceful
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 333
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
Posts: 333
Kudos: 214
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja,

Please help. Explanations here do NOT make sense to (poor) me.. :(
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 564
Kudos: 313
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheGraceful
GMATNinja,

Please help. Explanations here do NOT make sense to (poor) me.. :(

Hey TheGraceful, I'm no expert but would you mind sharing which option is causing you trouble and why? I think I've understood the problem well and might be able to help. A deep dive into an option would only make us better test takers. Again, I'd understand if you want to wait for an expert comment, but it might be beneficial to pour your thoughts here so you can compare those to an expert reply. Good luck! :)
avatar
GAngstA
Joined: 01 Feb 2021
Last visit: 05 Jul 2022
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 59
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
can extreme word in options can narrow down our hunt correct answer.....
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
313
 [2]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 564
Kudos: 313
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GAngstA
can extreme word in options can narrow down our hunt correct answer.....

GAngstA, depends entirely on the question. There is no golden rule that says that the correct option cannot contain a so called extreme word.
User avatar
TheGraceful
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 333
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
Posts: 333
Kudos: 214
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brian123
TheGraceful
GMATNinja,

Please help. Explanations here do NOT make sense to (poor) me.. :(

Hey TheGraceful, I'm no expert but would you mind sharing which option is causing you trouble and why? I think I've understood the problem well and might be able to help. A deep dive into an option would only make us better test takers. Again, I'd understand if you want to wait for an expert comment, but it might be beneficial to pour your thoughts here so you can compare those to an expert reply. Good luck! :)

I am NOT sure why C is wrong...
Also NOT convinced with explanations saying E is correct (which of course is)
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 564
Kudos: 313
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheGraceful
Brian123
TheGraceful
GMATNinja,

Please help. Explanations here do NOT make sense to (poor) me.. :(

Hey TheGraceful, I'm no expert but would you mind sharing which option is causing you trouble and why? I think I've understood the problem well and might be able to help. A deep dive into an option would only make us better test takers. Again, I'd understand if you want to wait for an expert comment, but it might be beneficial to pour your thoughts here so you can compare those to an expert reply. Good luck! :)

I am NOT sure why C is wrong...
Also NOT convinced with explanations saying E is correct (which of course is)


TheGraceful,

Option C says that Peter Lee's 1st novel was set in SF. We have no idea about where his 1st novel is set. The only thing that we know is that that he passed the reviewer's test in both of his novels. I'm quoting the line where this comes from - "Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours". We have no clue about the where the 1st novel is set. If this doesn't make sense, would you mind sharing why you think C is right?

Option E - Have a look at the 1st sentence of the passage - "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." The entire story that follows revolves around the fact that an author should know the city (in which a particular novel is set) as well as the reviewer does. Peter Lee Passes the reviewer's test, implying that Peter Lee know the city as well as the reviewer, further implying that thereviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does (option E)

Hope this helps! :)
User avatar
TheGraceful
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 333
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
Posts: 333
Kudos: 214
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brian123

TheGraceful,

Option C says that Peter Lee's 1st novel was set in SF. We have no idea about where his 1st novel is set. The only thing that we know is that that he passed the reviewer's test in both of his novels. I'm quoting the line where this comes from - "Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours". We have no clue about the where the 1st novel is set. If this doesn't make sense, would you mind sharing why you think C is right?

Option E - Have a look at the 1st sentence of the passage - "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." The entire story that follows revolves around the fact that an author should know the city (in which a particular novel is set) as well as the reviewer does. Peter Lee Passes the reviewer's test, implying that Peter Lee know the city as well as the reviewer, further implying that thereviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does (option E)

Hope this helps! :)


Ok.
"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 is how I interpreted it...

Now explain why and how this interpretation is wrong.
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 564
Kudos: 313
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheGraceful
Brian123

TheGraceful,

Option C says that Peter Lee's 1st novel was set in SF. We have no idea about where his 1st novel is set. The only thing that we know is that that he passed the reviewer's test in both of his novels. I'm quoting the line where this comes from - "Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colours". We have no clue about the where the 1st novel is set. If this doesn't make sense, would you mind sharing why you think C is right?

Option E - Have a look at the 1st sentence of the passage - "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." The entire story that follows revolves around the fact that an author should know the city (in which a particular novel is set) as well as the reviewer does. Peter Lee Passes the reviewer's test, implying that Peter Lee know the city as well as the reviewer, further implying that thereviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does (option E)

Hope this helps! :)


Ok.
"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 is how I interpreted it...

Now explain why and how this interpretation is wrong.


Not sure what you mean here. You've just quoted the question stem. Where is your interpretation?
avatar
Thekingmaker
Joined: 28 Nov 2020
Last visit: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 113
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 96
Posts: 113
Kudos: 35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Yes this question has to undergo high critical analysis we have figure out option that very closely resembles first we have have some preassumptons that the author doesn't know all the places so pretty well she can understand if it's faked
A- it has no corerelation as of it's a prequisite but it's not a guaranteed that the book reviewer will enjoy
B-it's not necessary that the author knows the city well it could be that she could be very good at spotting fake ones
C- We have no sufficient information we just know that the second one was it might be set in some other place
D-she might trust however the author must not fake it
E - yes at last it might be a possiblity that the author knows the place quite well
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts