Book Review:  When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city at least as we...

Ravi February 18, 2019

Hey there,

Happy to help.

The stimulus can be broken down into a series of conditional statements.

If a novel is set in a city that the reviewer knows well, if the
reviewer is to take the writer seriously, the writer must show that
she knows the city at least as well as the reviewer.

Set in city knows well + take writer seriously - ->writer must know
city at least as well as reviewer

If the writer demonstrates the required knowledge, then the reviewer
trusts the storyteller and the tale.

writer demonstrates required knowledge - >reviewer trusts storyteller and tale

If the reviewer trusts the tale, then it increases the reviewer's enjoyment

reviewer trusts tale - >increases reviewer's enjoyment

We're told at the end of the stimulus that Peter Lee's second novel is
in San Francisco, and just like his first, it passes the reviewer's
test.

The question asks, "Which one of the following can be properly
inferred from the passage?"

We're looking for something that must be true. What can we infer from
the stimulus?

We know that the novel is in San Francisco, and we also know that it
passed the reviewer's test. And, since this novel passes the
reviewer's test, we know that the writer has to know San Francisco at
least as well as the reviewer does. We also know that since the writer
demonstrated the required knowledge, then the reviewer has to trust
both the storyteller (Peter Lee) and the tale (the novel).
Additionally, since the reviewer does trust the novel, we know that
the reviewer's enjoyment of the novel is also increased.

We need an answer choice that expresses one or more of these deductions.

(E) says, "The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San
Francisco better than Peter Lee does."

You had said (E) confused you because you didn't get how the book
reviewer not believing she knows better about San Francisco is
equivalent to the condition that the writer knows at least as much
about San Francisco. You also wondered if they could possibly know
equally the same about San Francisco, how can the book reviewer
conclusively not know better?

Here's why (E) must be true. If the reviewer did not believe that she
knew San Francisco better, then she would not trust the writer.
However, the reviewer does trust the writer. Since she trusts the
writer, it must be the case that the reviewer believes that the
novelist knows at least as much about San Francisco as she does. It's
totally possible that they know the same amount about San Francisco,
but what matters is that the writer knows AT LEAST AS MUCH as the
reviewer. This is the necessary condition that must be satisfied in
the first rule based on the sufficient conditions. When we apply the
rule contained within the first sentence, we know that the reviewer
must believe that Peter Lee knows San Francisco at least as well as
the reviewer.

While it is true that the reviewer doesn't ever claim she's familiar
with San Francisco, because the reviewer says that Peter Lee passes
the test, we can infer that the reviewer believes that she can apply
the rule that she has laid out in the first sentence. From this, we
can infer that the reviewer knows San Francisco well and the writer
knows it at least as well as the reviewer.

Does this help? Let us know if you have any more questions!