sayan640 wrote:
KarishmaB MartyMurrayKindly explain this question.
Is it following the causal pattern ?
Cause -> Effect
Reading Sartore's Review -> Realization of aptness to watch the movie
kindly elaborate.
This argument is not a cause-effect argument. This part of the passage, "A person who is likely to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore than a review by Kelly," is not the conclusion of the argument. It's stated as a fact that supports the conclusion.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.We see that the argument is not about what Sartore's reviews cause. It's about what Sartore is, a better reviewer.
Then, the support for the conclusion works in the following way.
The support begins by defining what a movie review should do:
A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movieThen, the conclusion that Sartore is the better reviewer is supported through showing that Sartore's reviews are more likely to do what reviews should:
a person who is likely to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realize this by reading a review by SartoreSo, the reasoning of the argument is basically that a review should accomplish a certain thing, that Sartore's reviews are more likely to accomplish that, and that, therfore, Sartore is the better reviewer.
Let's now move on to the question stem:
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?This is a Strengthen question, and the correct answer will somehow strengthen the support for the conclusion.
(A) Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan.This choice has a vibe of strengthening the argument since it appears to indicate that Sartore is more expert in film than Kelly.
At the same time, this choice does not strengthen the argument. After all, the fact that Sartore "has technical knowledge" doesn't mean that he does a better job of reviewing films. After all, he could have lots of technical knowledge and still not be any better at reviewing than Kelly, a fan.
Eliminate.
(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.This choice clearly does not mean that Kelly is not as good a reviewer as Sartore.
After all, the passage says basically the same thing about Sartore, "Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one."
So, this choice shows that the two reviewers are similar, not that Sartore is better.
Eliminate.
(C) One who is apt not to enjoy a particular movie is more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore than a review by Kelly.This choice is interesting.
The passage has defined what a movie review should do:
A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movieIt has also provided some support for the conclusion that Sartore is the better reviewer by showing that his reviews do some of what they "should" better than Kelly's do:
a person who is likely to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore than a review by KellyWe see that the passage has shown that Sartore is the better reviewer by saying that his reviews are better at helping people to realize that they WILL enjoy movies that they will likely enjoy.
Now, this choice shows that Sartore's reviews are better at doing something else that reviews should. They are better at helping people to realize that they WILL NOT enjoy movies that they are not likely to enjoy.
So, this choice provides additional information indicating that Sartore's reviews are more likely to do what reviews should do and thus provides additional support for the conclusion that he is the better reviewer.
Keep.
(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.We can eliminate this choice for two reasons.
One is that causing someone to "enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have" is not the job of a reviewer. The job of a reviewer is to help people to determine whether they are apt to enjoy movies before seeing them. So, the fact presented by this choice does not impact the case for Sartore being a better reviewer.
The second is that this choice does not provide any comparison with Kelly. In other words, for all we know, what this choice says about Sartore's reviews is also true of Kelly's reviews.
So, since this choice is about Sartore's reviews only and does not enable a comparison with Kelly's, the information it provides does not indicate that Sartore's reviews are better than Kelly's.
Eliminate.
(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.The fact that most of the movies Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly makes the two reviewers appear similar, rather than indicates that Sartore is a better reviewer.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C