Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S1 · Q12 Sartore is a better movie reviewer

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.

Conclusion

Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly.

Evidence

A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie.

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.

Opposing Point

Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one.

Evaluate

The argument is half-finished in proving the conclusion. It has established that those who are likely to enjoy a particular movie will be more likely to realize this by reading Sartore's review. But what about those people who are likely to not-enjoy the movie? They are more important to measure since Sartore's reviews are more often unfavorable.

Goal

To strengthen this argument find an answer that makes it so that people are more likely to determine that for movies one will not enjoy, one is more likely to learn from a review by Sartore.

12.

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

  1. Sartore has technical knowledge of

    Out of Scope

    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% picked this

  2. Most of Kelly’s movie reviews

    No Impact

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    One who is apt not

    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% picked this

  4. Reading a movie review by

    Weakens

    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.

    7% picked this

  5. Most of the movies that

    Too Weak

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free