#23 - Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Tryingmyverybest,

It is important to distinguish between the book reviewer and the author. The author is also known as Peter Lee.

So the book reviewer said that if she is to take a writer seriously, the writer must know the city at least as well as she does, which means better than she does or the same as she does.

The book reviewer then says the Peter Lee passes this test with San Francisco. This means Peter Lee, also referred to as the author, knows the city as well as the book reviewer or better.

Answer choice E says the book reviewer does not believe that she (herself in this case, very important to catch this) knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee. This is true based on our stimulus since Peter Lee knows the city at least as well as the book reviewer, so there is no way the book reviewer knows it better.

To answer your comment, answer choice E did not give us "better than" which we would not be able to back up, it gave us "not better than" which is entirely different. The book reviewer not knowing the city better than the author means that the author knows the city better than or the same as the book reviewer, which is exactly what the stimulus said.

I hope this helps!

Good luck with your studies!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Rose,

Many conditional statements will contain both sufficient and necessary language, but will not be biconditionals. A biconditional only occurs when both the sufficient and necessary indicators both apply to both terms. It's not that whenever you see conditional statements with sufficient and necessary language, you'll see a biconditional. Both terms have to apply both terms.

Here the word "required" isn't being use as a conditional in the same way. It is calling into the whole chain:

Take writer seriously Writer knows city at least as well as I do Trust storyteller Increase enjoyment

The knowledge was required to take the writer seriously. The demonstration of that knowledge is sufficient for the author to trust the storyteller.

Hope that helps!

Hi
I managed to get the right answer but along the conditional reasoning chain I could not tell if the link between

"writer must know city well -> trust storyteller"

was a double arrow (if and only if) or single arrow (if --> then). Normally I would consider it a single arrow because if the writer knows the city well = novelist demonstrating the required knowledge" THEN --> reviewer trusts the story teller (necessary condition).

What messed me up was reading the reasoning thread to a previous question in the training type : #9 - A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies ..."
In the explanation for this question #9 on the forum the moderator says that a double arrow "if and only if" occurs because of a line that goes "X is good if it satisfies two requirements". Since IF is sufficient but the word requirement literally means necessary it became double arrowed.

This question #23 here, has the line " if/when X demonstrates the REQUIRED knowledge --> trust storyteller" in the stimulus. I wrote my reasoning out for both scenarios (whether it was if and ONLY if and also if it was not!) because it made B attractive as the former. Answer E stood out to me clearly as the correct answer anyways. However if not for E, this language would have fooled because of the similarity to the previous question above (#9). Similarity being that it appears to start with a sufficient indicator but has the literal word for necessary in it just like the other question. So why isn't it also a double arrow relationship then?

I know the two premises are different and that #9 is a double arrow for some reason and #23's conditional chain is not. Yet I can't explain why or how they differ or how to differentiate the next time something similar comes up. Could someone please see both that discussion and this stimulus and explain where I am making the mistake?

Sorry if this is written in a confusing way, I can clarify if required. Thank you in advance!

[intrepidlady97]

I've read and understand the above explanation, and I understand how to make a conditional diagram for the first sentence. However, I'm unsure if there is a need to make a diagram for the later sentences, and I'm having trouble proving answer choice A) wrong with a diagram (although the explanation above for why A) is incorrect makes sense!). I apologize in advance -- I can't figure out how to do strikethrough text in here.

NCK: Novel set in a city the reviewer knows well
WCK: Writer knows the city at least as well as the reviewer
TW: Reviewer trusts the writer (a.k.a. takes the writer seriously)
TT: Reviewer trusts the tale
E: Increased enjoyment of novel

Sentence #1:

NCK and TW WCK

Contrapositive:

Not(WCK) Not(NCK) or Not(TW)


Sentence #2:

Not(WCK) Not(TW)

Sentence #3:

I think "so" is a necessary indicator here?

WCK TW TT

or WCK TW and TT

And then I don't think Sentence #4 needs to be diagrammed?



If this diagramming is correct, then:

A) I'm not sure how this can be proven incorrect using one of these diagrams, although the explanation above definitely makes sense. Unless there's a diagram that can be made from Sentence #4?

B) TW NCK

Once again, if I read B) I can tell (by the same logic as your explanation) that it is incorrect. However I can't exactly classify this diagram as a mistaken reversal/negation. Likewise with answer D).

I apologize if this is a bit of a redundant question. I'm still working out when/when not to diagram for these conditional questions.

Thanks!
Charly

[intrepidlady97]

Eric,

The stimulus exhibits conditional relationships, which can be simplified and combined into a conditional chain as follows:

Take writer seriously Writer knows city at least as well as I do Trust storyteller Increase enjoyment

Now, what do we know about Peter Lee's second novel? It's set in SF, and it passes the book reviewer's test "with flying colors." What does she mean by that? Clearly, she takes Peter Lee seriously, which means that Peter Lee knows SF at least as well as the book reviewer does. This prephrase immediately agrees with answer choice (E) - the book reviewer does not believe that she knows SF better than Peter Lee does.

Does that make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

Hey Nicole,

Am I correct in that there are two ways to diagram this out? One way uses an "and" to combine sufficient conditions, and is only used if we include "When I read a novel set in a city I know well" in the diagram. For example (sentence #1):

Novel set in a city the reviewer knows well and Trust storyteller Writer knows city at least as well as I do

The second way is the way you've done it, where we DON'T include "When I read a novel set in a city I know well" in the diagram. For this approach, I am wondering how you figured out the trust storyteller increase enjoyment part of the diagram. To me, there are no sufficient and necessary indicators in the fourth sentence, so I was unsure of how to diagram this piece.

Overall, which diagramming approach is better for this question?

Thanks,
Charly

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Charly,

In terms of multiple ways to diagram, you could start by writing the different conditional relationships separately before you write them as a single chain. Here's what it would look like separately.

Take writer seriously knows city at least as well as reviewer
If faking not trust writer
Demonstrate knowledge trust writer
Trust writer increase enjoyment.
Peter passes test (aka demonstrates knowledge).

To combine these we can say

Take writer seriously know city at least as well as reviewer trust writer increase enjoyment.

To see the trust/enjoyment piece, look for the conditional indicator "when" in that statement. "When" is a classic sufficient indicator. I find the "when set in a city I know well" to be superfluous to the overall argument here, and I didn't include it in any of my diagrams.

We don't have to be able to classify wrong answers as mistaken reversals/negations in order to mark them wrong. They can be wrong for other reasons.

For answer choice (A), we can't prove that because increasing enjoyment isn't the same as actually enjoying something. For example, audiobooks increase my enjoyment of flying. But I don't enjoy flying. I can't jump from a comparative statement (increase enjoyment) to an absolute statement (enjoys).

Answer choice (B) is a mistaken reversal. Answer choice (D) is about a different situation. We can't really draw any information about cities the reviewer does not know well, because this whole stimulus is about cities that the author knows well. We can't determine anything about cities the reviewer doesn't know well.

Hope that helps!

[Justandrea13]

Hi Power Score,

I am still confused as to why (E) is the correct answer.

I initially chose B as the correct answer and I understand why it is wrong. I ended up sort of forcing B as the correct answer because I thought that E was too strong, if that makes sense. "The book reviewer DOES NOT BELIEVE that she knows San Francisco better..."

We can infer that the author knows SF city as well as the reviewer does based on the information in the stimulus. But to go from that to the author does not believe that she knows the city better than the author seemed to go too far.

Do you have any suggestions on how I can better understand this? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Think of this portion of the reviewer's statements, Justandrea13:

I must see that the writer knows the city at least as well as I do

That has everything to do with what the reviewer believes to be true, doesn't it? It's like "I have to be convinced." It's not enough that the author knows the city better than she does; they have to prove it to her in their writing.

And while this is a Must Be True question, rather than an Assumption question, think about the negation of that answer for a moment. What if the reviewer did NOT believe that? Wouldn't that conflict with her statement that "Lee passes my test with flying colors"?