PT6.S2.Q23 - Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city

babybenny

I was down to A and E, and am having a difficult time understanding why A is incorrect and E is the right answer.
Can someone please enlighten me?

FlashLSAT

This is a very late response but may be helpful to others who come to this discussion thread....

A. The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts.
a. This was my original answer choice. I chose this to be correct because I had an improper understanding of the LAWGIC in the stimulus.
i. The first sentence says “When I read a novel set in a city I know well…”. This portion of the sentence sets the criteria of the type of books the book reviewer will be discussing. We know nothing else of OTHER types of novels the author reads given the limited information we are given.

B. If the book reviewer entrusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well.
a. This answer choice would be correct if the stimulus said something along the lines of “If the book is not based in a city that I know well then I will not entrusts the novelist” this is a contrapositive of this AC. We don’t know if the book reviewer entrusts novelist who write books ONLY base in cities that he know well.
i. For example it could be the case that the author entrusts novelist who write books about scientific topics that the reviewer knows very well. We just don’t know and we need to be cautious before subscribing to ACs that are to ambitious.

C. Peter Lee’s first novel was set in San Francisco.
a. This inference doesn’t follow from the stimulus. It could have been based in another city known well by the reviewer like Dallas or NYC once again we just don’t know.

D. The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well.
a. This is very attractive answer choice and may seem logical but it is severely flawed.
i. Base on the stimulus this is what we know about the reviewer.
1. We know what happens when a book is read based in a city that is known well by the reviewer
2. We know what happens when the reviewer takes a writer seriously.
3. We know what happens when required knowledge is demonstrated
4. We Know what happens when the reviewer trusts the novelist
ii. We know nothing about books based in cities that the reviewer does not know well.

E. The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee.
a. We know this by a key statement made in the first sentence. “I must see that the writer knows the city ATLEAST as well as I do…” This is critical to understand along with the last part of the stimulus where we learn that the reviewer tests were passed by Lee. If Peter knows MORE than the reviewer than that’s ok. But HE MUST KNOW ATLEAST! And because he must know at least we know as fact that she cannot know MORE.