- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#22771
Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True-SN. The correct answer choice is (E)
This stimulus consists of rules and information, so we should be interested in how the rules and information interact. Quite often such a stimulus will yield definite conclusions.
We know that Peter Lee passes the reviewer’s test. Applying the rule in the first sentence, the reviewer must believe that Peter Lee knows San Francisco as well or better than the reviewer. Since the author claims to be able to tell the difference between a true knowledge and an author who is faking, we must at least grant that the author wholly believes that Peter Lee is not a fake. We should also infer that the reviewer trusts Peter Lee, because he has passed the test by demonstrating the required knowledge.
It is true that the reviewer never specifically claimed familiarity with San Francisco, so it could be unclear why the rule infers anything. However, since the author says that Peter passes the test, the implication is that the reviewer believes that she can apply the rule, and that she knows San Francisco well.
Answer choice (A): The reviewer claims that trust enhances the enjoyment of a good novel. Since we should not assume that all the novels the author reads are good, it is not necessarily true that the author will enjoy virtually all the novels by writers she trusts. Because of that detail, this answer is unsupported, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The reviewer discusses how an author might gain her trust if he sets his novel in a city she knows well. That does not imply that the author trusts only those authors who set their novels in cities she knows well, so this choice is unsupported and wrong.
Answer choice (C): Since the author could be very familiar with many cities, we should not conclude that Peter Lee’s first book would have to be set in San Francisco for the reviewer’s test to apply, and this choice is incorrect. Also, in general, you should not assume that events have to be comparable unless the stimulus forces you to make such conclusions.
Answer choice (D): You could have eliminated this choice simply because it is about trusting the novel, whereas the stimulus concerned trusting the writer. Furthermore, this choice is also very similar to answer choice (B), which brings up an interesting point. Since the correct answer to a Logical Reasoning question must be unique, you should eliminate answer choices that are identical to each other. Since answer choice (D) claims that the reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city she does not know well, we could create the conditional diagram of know well→ trust. The contrapositive of that diagram is trust→ know well, which is basically identical to answer choice (B). Therefore, both choices are incorrect, and any criticism leveled against answer choice (B) should be leveled against answer choice (D).
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The implication of the argument, as discussed, was that the reviewer believes that Peter Lee knows San Francisco at least as well as she does. If Peter Lee knows San Francisco “at least as well,” he knows the city as well or better.
Must Be True-SN. The correct answer choice is (E)
This stimulus consists of rules and information, so we should be interested in how the rules and information interact. Quite often such a stimulus will yield definite conclusions.
We know that Peter Lee passes the reviewer’s test. Applying the rule in the first sentence, the reviewer must believe that Peter Lee knows San Francisco as well or better than the reviewer. Since the author claims to be able to tell the difference between a true knowledge and an author who is faking, we must at least grant that the author wholly believes that Peter Lee is not a fake. We should also infer that the reviewer trusts Peter Lee, because he has passed the test by demonstrating the required knowledge.
It is true that the reviewer never specifically claimed familiarity with San Francisco, so it could be unclear why the rule infers anything. However, since the author says that Peter passes the test, the implication is that the reviewer believes that she can apply the rule, and that she knows San Francisco well.
Answer choice (A): The reviewer claims that trust enhances the enjoyment of a good novel. Since we should not assume that all the novels the author reads are good, it is not necessarily true that the author will enjoy virtually all the novels by writers she trusts. Because of that detail, this answer is unsupported, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The reviewer discusses how an author might gain her trust if he sets his novel in a city she knows well. That does not imply that the author trusts only those authors who set their novels in cities she knows well, so this choice is unsupported and wrong.
Answer choice (C): Since the author could be very familiar with many cities, we should not conclude that Peter Lee’s first book would have to be set in San Francisco for the reviewer’s test to apply, and this choice is incorrect. Also, in general, you should not assume that events have to be comparable unless the stimulus forces you to make such conclusions.
Answer choice (D): You could have eliminated this choice simply because it is about trusting the novel, whereas the stimulus concerned trusting the writer. Furthermore, this choice is also very similar to answer choice (B), which brings up an interesting point. Since the correct answer to a Logical Reasoning question must be unique, you should eliminate answer choices that are identical to each other. Since answer choice (D) claims that the reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city she does not know well, we could create the conditional diagram of know well→ trust. The contrapositive of that diagram is trust→ know well, which is basically identical to answer choice (B). Therefore, both choices are incorrect, and any criticism leveled against answer choice (B) should be leveled against answer choice (D).
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The implication of the argument, as discussed, was that the reviewer believes that Peter Lee knows San Francisco at least as well as she does. If Peter Lee knows San Francisco “at least as well,” he knows the city as well or better.
.....Reviewer must see that writer knows city...