Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. A movie review

We need to strengthen the fact that sartore is better reviewer though he gives unfavorable review

Because if ppl who won't njoy movie can deduce the same from sartore review before going to movie then his review is helpful to those

And this is what C says exactly

Posted from my mobile device

CONCLUSION: "Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly."
Note that "A movie review should help reader determine WHETHER OR NOT they are apt to enjoy the movie." We can break down what constitutes a GOOD review into 2 criteria:
(1) helps reader who is LIKELY to enjoy a particular movie to realize that it is likely a GOOD one by reading the review;
(2) helps reader who is LESS LIKELY to enjoy a particular movie realize that it is NOT likely a good one by reading the review.

(A) Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan.
If so, we must make an ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTION that who has technical knowledge of film ALWAYS provides better reviews than a fan. Also, this does not address the 2nd criterion. Eliminate (A).

(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.
Premise 2 tells us that Sartore is better than Kelly in reviewing good movie. But is Sartore also better at reviewing movies that are NOT good than Kelly is? If (B) is true, then BOTH Kelly and Sartore are more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one. But we do NOT know who is better with regard to the category of NOT GOOD movies. Eliminate (B).

(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.
(C) satisfies the 2nd criterion: so Sartore is better at BOTH categories of movie. He is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one simply because the movie is more likely to be NOT GOOD in fact. Keep (C).

(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.
The argument is concerned with the ACCURACY of reviews by 2 reviewers rather than WHETHER one enjoy the movie more by reading review . Eliminate (D).

(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.
(E) does not address the 2nd criterion. Eliminate (E).

Hence, (C) is correct.

I do wish official explanations are provided!

S is a better reviewer than K
why?
a review shd help a reader to make him realize WHETHER OR NOT the reader will enjoy the film

so, as a reader i will say: i will enjoy this movie
or i will say: i will not enjoy this movie

(A) Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan.

does tech knowledge make his reviews better? following my gut i found this info irrelevant

(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.

"S is more likely to give an unfavorable review"
this means S's reviews are generally unfavorable? if yes, then both give unfavorable reviews..it dosnt seem to affect the argument

(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 is where "whether or not" comes into play.

(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.

this means even tho you will enjoy the movie more if you have read S's review.....BUT S's review has NOT helped in deciding whether or not you will enjoy the movie

(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.

i dont know how to eliminate this choice

A. S has technical knowledge about films. Does that guarantee that he is also a good reviewer? After all the argument talks about reviews.
B. The conclusion is that S is better than K in reviewing movies. How does K giving more unfavourable reviews do anything to it?
C. So a persons liking of a movie is better predicted by S. So C strengthens the argument.
D. This says S has a influence on whether someone will like a movie independent of the viewers liking of the movie. Weakens.
E. This slightly strengthens the argument. Since there is a comparison b/w both in the argument, having both review same movies strengthens the argument. But, how does it strengthen the statement that S is better than K.
So b/w C and E it is C.

Posted from my mobile device

Can someone please help me out? Isn't C just a re-instatement of one of the premises? Am i missing something?

Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie, and 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, even though Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one.
Conclusion : S is better movie reviewer than K.
P1- A person who is likely to enjoy a particular movie is much more likely to realise by reading review of S than K.
Strengthen option should defend the conclusion or weaken the weakner.


Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan. - Tech.knowledge is not affecting the conclusion i.e role of movie reviewer, whose main role is to help readers to select which movie is apt for them.

(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.- As per premise S gives more unfavorable review than Kelly . So what no where affecting conclusion.

(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.- Support conclusion by providing information for people those were not likely to enjoy a particular movie.

(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.- So ? How come S is better than K ?

(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.- Does this affect conclusion ?

Posted from my mobile device

Choice C gives strength to the opinion that Sartore provides honest reviews. Hence, either of the group of people, the ones who are likely to watch it or not, are going to refer to the reviews provided by Sartore and not by Kelly.

What about people who were likely to enjoy a particular movie? C doesnt say anything about them

How does Option C satisy both parts of the criterion to be a good reviewer:

1) Correctly determining if a movie is apt to be enjoyed
2) Correctly determining if a movie is not apt to be enjoyed

Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie, and 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, even though Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one.

Statement implies that Sartores truthful reviews, even if they are harsher, are more likely to allow readers to understand whether they will enjoy the movie.

We need to find an answer that leads us to further believe that Sartore is a better reviewer.


Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan.

Technical knowledge is irrelevant. This is out

(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.

We need to understand how sartore is a better reviewer than Kelly. This answer doesn’t really add much to the existing conclusion. This is out

(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.

True. This is the answer. The reason is that this response actually helps validate two outcomes that are relevant to the scenario:
1. reading sartore’s reviews gives you a sense whether you’ll like the movie
2. Reading sartore’s reviewed gives you a sense whether you won’t like the movie

(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.

This answer says that reading one of sartores reviews is more helpful than not reading a review at all. Wrong comparison, as we need to find a comparison between Sartore and Jane.

(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.

This has no effect on the conclusion that sartore is a better reviewer.

Posted from my mobile device