LSAT 6 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well…

QUESTION TYPE: Must be True

FACTS: The reviewer first checks if the book is set in a city the reviewer knows well. If the author describes the city well the reviewer trusts the book. If the author doesn’t describe the city well then the author doesn’t trust the book.

The book being reviewed is set in San Francisco and passed the test. The first book also passed the test. We don’t know where it was set, but it must have been a city the author knew well.

We can also conclude that the reviewer knows San Francisco well and that the reviewer trusts the book.

ANALYSIS: This question depends on a precise reading of the stimulus. The reviewer wants the author to know the city “at least as well as they do.”

Put another way that means the author either knows more than the reviewer or exactly as well as the reviewer. It is no good if the author knows a lot but the reviewer knows even more.

Also note that we know nothing about novels set in cities the reviewer does not know well. The reviewer might have another test for those cities.

___________

1. This is only true if the author doesn’t mess up their descriptions of cities.
2. Not necessarily. The reviewer might have other tests to judge a book if it is set in a city they don’t know.
3. Not necessarily. It only has to be true that it was a city the reviewer knew well.
4. We don’t know anything about novels set in cities the author does not know well.
5. CORRECT. Yes. The reviewer has to believe the author knows the city at least as well (or better) than reviewer does.

Recap: The question begins with “Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well”. It is a Must be True question. Learn how to master LSAT MBT questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.