Q8 - A good movie reviewer should be able to give

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: A good reviewer should be able to give positive review of movies that don't suit his/her taste.
Evidence: The function of movie reviewers is to help people determine which movies they might enjoy seeing, not to help them better appreciate movies.

Answer Anticipation:
The two big patterns on ID the Conclusion questions are to have the conclusion
1. Connected to some but/yet/however rebuttal in the middle
2. First sentence.

If you remind yourself of that as you read the question stem, prior to reading the argument, it often makes finding the conclusion much easier. Here, it's the first sentence (the word "should" indicates an opinion), which we know because what follows is an attempt to support the opinion in the first sentence. Once we find and bracket the conclusion, we just need to pick the answer choice with the closest meaning.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) That's a conclusion drawn in the 2nd sentence (Because ____, ____ …. tells us that the 2nd idea is a conclusion). But the author pivots from that idea with a "Yet", so this conclusion isn't even really part of the author's direct support. It's more of a counterpoint conclusion, or something that provides context for our actual premise.

(B) Yes, this sounds like the first sentence.

(C) This is a detail nested within our premise.

(D) This is a premise for a counterpoint conclusion.

(E) This is our premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: If someone thought that the "Yet" was introducing the conclusion (in classic but/yet/however form), they would talk themselves out of that by thinking, "There's no SUPPORT provided for this idea, so it can't be a conclusion."

It should also strike veteran LSAT students as a suspicious choice, given that it's the final idea of the paragraph. On ID the Conclusion questions, at least 95% of the time, the Conclusion appears before the supporting idea(s).

#officialexplanation