Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:15) correct
55%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 1689
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
21 May 2014, 01:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
temuchin
Premises:
If the reviewer knows the city well, she must see that the writer knows the city as well as the reviewer to trust the author and the tale. This maker her enjoy a good novel more.
Lee's second novel is set in SF and in this novel too, as in his first, he passes the reviewer's test - i.e. he knows the city in which the tale is set as well as the reviewer.
(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts
No. If she trusts the author, she trusts the tale which increases her enjoyment of a GOOD tale. If the tale is not good, she may not like it - we don't know.
(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 argument doesn't tell us what she does in case she herself doesn't know the city. So we cannot infer this.
(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco
Not given in the argument.
(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well
Again, the argument doesn't tell us what she does in case she herself doesn't know the city. So we cannot infer this.
(E) The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee does
Since Lee passes the test with flying colors, it means he knows SF as well as the reviewer. So the reviewer does not believe that she knows SF better than Lee. This is correct. We can infer this.
Answer (E)
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.
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.
