lsat-6-2-23

23. Book Review: When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously. If the writer is faking I know immediately and do not trust the writer. When a novelist demonstrates the required knowledge, I trust the story teller, so I trust the tale. This trust increases my enjoyment of a good novel. Peter Lee's second novel is set in San Francisco, in this novel, as in his first, Lee passes my test with flying colors.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?

(A) The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts

(B) If the book reviewer trusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well

(C) Peter Lee's first novel was set in San Francisco

(D) The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well    (E)

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

能否帮我解释原文的意思？看了好多遍，看不懂。 多谢！

书评：当我读一本小说说的那个城市我知道，那么如果我认真对待的话我就一定能知道那个作者对那个城市了解和我一样多。如果作者在造假，我马上就看得出来并且不再相信他。当一个小说家证实了所需的知识，我就相信他，也相信他写的故事。这种信任增加了我对好的小说的乐趣。PL的第二本小说写的是旧金山，和他在第一本小说里一样，成功地通过我的测试。

这道题信息太多了，简单地说就是：这个人喜欢PL的第二本书，因此他信任PL，信任说明PL没有捏造，那么这个reviewer怎么看得出来PL没有捏造呢？因为他本人很了解旧金山，同时他see that the writer knows the city as well as。。。也就是说reviewer本人不认为自己比PL了解得多。

谢谢，之前没有理解到 as well as 就说明 not better than.., 多谢！以为不会有这样的答案。