Sartore is a better movie reviewer

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely

   The way a movie reviewer is judged is by how likely someone is to determine whether or not they'll like a particular movie. These factors don't make Sartore a better reviewer along the criterion to be helpful.

   6%
2. B

   No Impact1% picked this

   Most of Kelly’s movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie

   Even if most of Kelly's movie reviews are unfavorable, it might still turn out that people don't find it easy to determine whether or not they'll enjoy a particular movie from Kelly's reviews.

   1%
3. C

   Correct74% picked this

   One who is apt not to enjoy a particular movie is more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore

   Why this is right

   This completes the other half of the argument. Now Sartore is more likely to be helpful to people who are likely to enjoy a movie when he gives a favorable review and when he gives an unfavorable review.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
4. D

   Weakens8% picked this

   Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than

   This makes it less likely that Satore's reviews are helpful, since most of Sartore's reviews are unfavorable. This would create a mismatch between the unfavorable review and the increased enjoyment by reading Sartore's review.

   8%
5. E

   Too Weak11% picked this

   Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed

   If Sartore and Kelly reviewed the same movies as each other that would make it easier to compare them. But this answer leaves room for there to be a ton of movies that are reviewed by Sartore and that are not reviewed by Kelly. It also leaves open the possibility that Sartore does not review most of the movies reviewed by Kelly.

   11%