PrepTest 146, Section 1, Question 12
Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- ASartore has technical(9 more words not shown)
- BMost of Kelly's(9 more words not shown)
- COne who is(24 more words not shown)
- DReading a movie(17 more words not shown)
- EMost of the(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Better at what? A reviewer could know a lot about film or have tastes similar to mine, but the argument gives us a specific standard: help readers figure out whether they're likely to enjoy a movie.
Sartore does better for people who would enjoy the movie. What about the people who wouldn't? A useful review should help them avoid a disappointing night, too. We can't settle the comparison for all readers just by looking at the group that would like what they're watching. Sartore's tendency to write unfavorable reviews doesn't answer that question; an unfavorable review might still describe the movie well enough for a particular reader to know they'd enjoy it.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen this, I'd like to know that Sartore also does better for people who won't enjoy the movie. Another possible route would be to show why helping likely fans matters more to this comparison. Either way, we need support for judging the reviewers overall from the particular advantage the argument gives us.
Working the answers
- A
Technical knowledge doesn't tell us how useful the reviews are to readers. Sartore might know the details of filmmaking but communicate them poorly, while a fan could explain clearly what kind of experience the viewer should expect. We need a connection between the review and the reader's ability to predict their enjoyment, not merely a difference in credentials.
- B
The proportion of unfavorable reviews doesn't establish how well Kelly informs readers. Perhaps many of the movies Kelly reviews are ones those readers wouldn't enjoy, and an unfavorable review communicates that accurately. Or perhaps the reviews miss what matters to readers. B doesn't decide between those possibilities.
- CCorrect
This fills the missing side of the comparison. People who would enjoy a movie are more likely to realize it from Sartore's review, and now people who wouldn't enjoy it are more likely to realize that from Sartore's review too. Sartore has an advantage in helping both groups judge their likely reaction. That gives us much stronger support for calling Sartore the better reviewer under the stated standard.
- D
Helping someone enjoy a movie more isn't quite the same as helping them predict whether they'll enjoy it. More importantly, D doesn't compare Sartore with Kelly at all. Kelly's reviews might improve enjoyment just as much or more. A benefit compared with reading no review doesn't establish that Sartore is better than this other reviewer.
- E
Reviewing many of the same movies gives the reviewers overlapping subjects, but it doesn't tell us who handles those subjects better. Both could review a particular film while differing greatly in how well they help readers anticipate their enjoyment.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.