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

Question

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.

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

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

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

(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.

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

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

LSAT 78

rajamech · Answer

Official answer on Manhatten Prep:
Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis: 
(A) Out of scope. The argument doesn't care about technical knowledge; just whether a person can help people know if they'd enjoy a movie. If you equated technical knowledge with an ability to inform people, you made an unwarranted jump.

(B) If anything, this answer tells me that Kelly and Sartore are similar in some way. That doesn't help me determine that Sartore is better.

(C) Bingo. Almost exactly what we predicted. We needed to support Sartore's better skills with an answer comparing the two reviewers and stating that S beats K. This does that for a new group, strengthening our conclusion.

(D) Out of scope. "Good reviews" are defined in the argument as helping people determine whether they would like a film, not altering whether or not they'd enjoy the movie.

(E) Out of scope. The amount of overlap between the movies they review doesn't impact how good they are at reviewing movies. Also, if anything, this draws a similarity between the two, when I'm trying to conclude that they're different.

ArjunJag1328 · Answer

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.

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

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

(B) Most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.
 Explanation: Most are Favourable and rest are unfavourable. How does this option help us to determine whether Sartore is a better reviewer? - IRRELEVANT

(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.
 Explanation: There we go! This option implies that Sartore reviews are legit and people choose this platform to read genuine feedbacks. Hence it indirectly claims that Sartre is better off than Kelly. -CORRECT
 
(D) Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.
 Explanation: Sartore only gives legitimate reviews but it doesn't change a person's approach towards a movie just because of the review - INCORRECT
 
(E) Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.
 Explanation: So what? - INCORRECT

HENCE I chose C

Thank you
Arjun

mSKR · Answer

+ve review of 40% movies: Efficiency higher for S : Most people like movies as S reviewed compared to what K reviewed 
Negative review of 60% movies: Efficiency higher for K: Most people unlike movies as S reviewed compared to what K reviewed

Conclusion: Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.  
Which following options give most claim that yes, S is a better reviewer than K.

Irrelevant Information: It shows no relation with why S efficiency is higher than K . It maybe possible than fan review is more close to audience. It maybe equally possible than a person with technical knowledge can review better.

Irrelevant information: It doesn’t give any comparison with review of S.
It may be possible than K total number is smaller than total S. – strengthens the claim
It maybe equally possible that K review movie much higher than S that total number of K matching with audience is much higher than S- weakens the claim

Seems correct: Efficiency of sarote is higher with a reference , S reference helps t strengthen that S is better than K

We don’t care how much it would help to enjoy movie. We care more about the number of people can like the movie as predicted by S.

Irrelevant information: But I can’t figure out any relation between efficiency of each reviewer. Neither any information is given about a common movie that both reviewed and results were good for S or K

CEdward · Answer

Can someone explain C? In my view, it was simply a restatement of what we already know from the passage...A on the other hand tells us that Sartore's reviews, despite being unfavorable from time to time, is valid because he has the credentials...

Mission2027 · Answer

Argument here is: "A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie"

Conclusion here is: "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"

Option C is a repetition of an already given conclusion while the Option A will provide more strength to the argument.

I believe Option A is best answer among the given choices. Please clarify?

unraveled · Answer

Sri786 
The part you are saying is a conclusion is actually a sub-conclusion. See the logical flow of argument below:
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  - this is stated to reinforce the case in point to lead to the conclusion ) ----->  That's why -  Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.

Hence we need to find why Sartore is better movie reviewer OR how Sartore's skill is better?
C basically says that a review that helps people make a firm decision is better.

HTH.

AbhishekDhanraJ72 · Answer

I feel D is weakening to the argument. Can someone confirm this?

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards