Q12 - Sartore is a better

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
The argument concludes that Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. It's careful to draw the target as well: a movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie. So that's how we're going to judge better or worse in this argument, according to it's own judgement of what makes for a good movie review.

What does the argument tell us about Sartore's reviews? They're more likely to help someone who will enjoy a movie recognize that than Kelly. But what about the people who won't like a movie? We don't talk about that group.

Answer Anticipation:
Since we don't talk about the group that won't like a movie, we're likely to get that in the answer choices. We want to know that Sartore helps that group avoid those movies better than Kelly does. Also, in an argument comparing two people, it's important to get an answer that gives me information that lets me distinguish between them.

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.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an argument sets the target for your analysis, pay attention to it! Here, knowing the definition of "good reviewer" (help the reader determine whether they'd like a film) is important to the answers. Also, if a question talks about only one relevant group (here, people who would enjoy a particular movie), think about whether the other group/s (here, people who wouldn't enjoy a particular movie) are relevant.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi,

I chose D...Is it wrong because it says better movie=determine whether or not enjoy, but D only addresses the yes and not address no for enjoyment?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a fun one!

The argument concludes that Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. It's careful to draw the target as well: a movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie. So that's how we're going to judge better or worse in this argument, according to it's own judgement of what makes for a good movie review.

Satore does a better job with those who are likely to enjoy a particular movie. There's still room for Kelly to have a better track record overall. What about those people who are not likely to enjoy a particular movie? And that's the gap in this argument's reasoning. Answer choice (C) seals the deal for Satore. Now Satore has a better record for all movie goers.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope.
(B) rests on further assumptions. How each splits in terms of favorable/unfavorable doesn't add support without more information.
(D) is out of scope. How much one enjoys a movie has no impact on writing successful movie reviews, as success is defined in the argument.
(E) is out of scope. The definition of success as stated in the argument is not affected by Satore and Kelly reviewing the same movies.

[LsatCrusher822]

(B) rests on further assumptions. How each splits in terms of favorable/unfavorable doesn't add support without more information.

To get a bit more detailed, is B incorrect because even though S maybe "more likely" to give unfavorable reviews, we don't really know whether 50%+ of all his reviews are negative or not? Even if its a fact that the other guy has more negative reviews that favorable ones, this answer choice doesn't let us properly compare him to S because we still need to know the postive/negative split within S' reviews. Is this understanding correct?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (B) says that most of Kelley's movie reviews are unfavorable. So, more than half of Kelly's reviews are unfavorable. We still don't know what percentage of Satore's movie reviews are unfavorable.

This answer pretends the split is between favorable reviews and unfavorable reviews, when instead the split is between likely to enjoy a particular movie and not likely to enjoy a particular movie.

To get a bit more detailed, is B incorrect because even though S maybe "more likely" to give unfavorable reviews, we don't really know whether 50%+ of all his reviews are negative or not?

No, we cannot say that Satore is more likely to give unfavorable reviews according to (B), nor from the stimulus.

Even if its a fact that the other guy has more negative reviews that favorable ones, this answer choice doesn't let us properly compare him to S because we still need to know the postive/negative split within S' reviews. Is this understanding correct?

This is better, but remember, that if we did know the comparative split, we still don't know what the likelihood of someone enjoying a movie is based on whether it's a favorable or unfavorable review for either movie reviewer.

Hope that helps!

[MingL143]

This strengthening question is difficult for me. At the first pass, no answer choice seemed right. I eventually chose E because the rest choice all seemed wrong.

I prephrased the answer before went to the choices.

"To judge who is a better movie reviewer is relying only on how many of his/her favorable reviews which were realized by movie viewers.
Very few of Kelly’s favorable reviews which were realized by movie viewers
Or
Most of Sartore’s unfavorable reviews are also agreed by movie viewers. "

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm curious why your prephrase involves defining what makes someone a better reviewer, but it uses a standard DIFFERENT from the one the argument defined for us.

YOURS:
"To judge who is a better movie reviewer is relying only on how many of his/her favorable reviews which were realized by movie viewers.

WHAT THEY TOLD US:
"To judge who is a better movie reviewer is to measure who is better at helping readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy a movie"

If they're going to say that S is a better reviewer, then they are assuming that "S is better than K at helping readers determine whether or not they'd likely enjoy a movie."

Were we told that S is better than K at doing so?
Not quite.

We were told that for movies that readers are likely to enjoy, S is better than K at helping them realize that

But we're missing information on which reviewer is better when it comes to
"movies that readers are not likely to enjoy".

Being a good reviewer means that "if I would hate this movie, you're gonna help me realize that before I go seeing it. and if I would love this movie, you're gonna help me realize that before I go see it."

The argument only discussed half of that equation, so we're just looking at answers to fill in the blanks for the unknown other half of that equation.

In case this still isn't clicking, let's assume that I'm an average filmgoer. I love big cheesy action movies and hate slow dramas.

For big cheesy action movies, I'm much more likely to realize I'd enjoy the movie from Sartore's review compared to Kelly's.

But for slow dramas, we don't know which reviewer would do a better job helping me to realize I'm not likely to enjoy it.

(C) fills in that blank.

[EmilyL849]

Hi, Gurus.

I have one question regarding (E)

So, I do understand the better answer is (C). However, (E) does seem to help out quite a bit as well.
When I was doing the PT, I saw two issues.

1) What about the ones readers are not going to enjoy? Are they going to realize that more by reading Sartore?
2) What if Kelly reviews much more difficult films and hence, harder to make readers realize than one’s by Sartore?

I think (E) does point out the 2nd flaw.

If most movies reviewed by Sartore are also reviewed by Kelly, yet people are much more likely to realize whether they will enjoy movies by reading S, then that seems to strengthen the argument.

Could get an expert opinion on whether my reasoning is okay and if so how to get rid of tempting answer choices as such?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think your instincts there are solid. With a lot of Comparative arguments, we're looking for "where might there be an impactful difference between these two things being compared"?

And certainly if they are reviewing very different pools of movies, then that could have a meaningful impact on each reviewer's set of movie reviews.

But here are a couple things:

1. The rule given to us in the premises is that "a person that would enjoy a particular movie is more likely to realize that from S than from K."

This rule pertains to one movie at a time (and it's the same movie, so it forces it to be a movie that overlaps between S's set of reviewed movies and K's set of reviewed movies).

Had the rule been written about S's pool of reviews or K's, i.e. "a person that reads all of S's reviews is more likely to find movies they'd like than if they were to read all of K's reviews", then your #2 objection would be impactful.

But the rule this argument leans on is saying, "for any given movie ... S has this advantage over K". If a given movie didn't have a review from both S and K, then this rule simply wouldn't apply.


2. Even if your #2 objection had been valid for this argument, ruling out that objection (though definitely a Strengthener) is not AS STRONG a strengthener as (C) would be, as (C) effectively completes S's victory on both sides of a binary coin.

If it's a given movie you would like, S's review will better inform you.
If it's a given movie you wouldn't like, S's review will better inform you.
S wins.


If you want another sample of winning on both sides of a binary coin ...
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... -t315.html

[JianiL759]

Hi I have a question regarding the correct answer. I understand how the answer can fill the gap in the reasoning of the argument; but the stimulus also states that "Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one", and in that case, wouldn't it be normal that even if Sartore is not necessarily better than Kelly, one who is apt not to enjoy a movie would be more likely to realize this by reading Sartore's review? I mean, when we read a review unfavorable towards a movie, surely we would be more likely to feel that we do not like the movie ourselves.

[Laura Damone]

While that might be true in the real world, it isn't established in the stimulus, so we can't accept it as a fact. Sure, it's reasonable that reading an unfavorable review makes us more apt to dislike a movie. But it's also possible that we humans are so contrary that when we read an unfavorable review, we jump to the movie's defense and like it all the more.