Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 1 · Question 12

Incorrect. Technical knowledge isn't established as being relevant to a movie reviewer—just the ability to let people assess whether or not they'd like a film.

Incorrect. This answer allows us to compare Kelly to Sartore on positive/negative reviews, but there's no indication this ties into either's ability as a movie reviewer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Sartore Ð More likely to pan a movie than praise it
Sartore vs. Kelly Ð Sartore is more likely to help someone who would like a movie realize it
Reviewer goal Ð Help readers determine whether or not they'll like a movie
Conclusion Ð Sartore is a better reviewer than Kelly

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument compares Sartore and Kelly as movie reviewers, deciding that Sartore is superior. When a conclusion compares two things, the premises need to establish the relevant criteria for that comparison and then provide enough information to assess how both things meet them. Failing to do so leaves a gap/flaw in the argument.

Here, the argument does establish the criteria for this comparison—a movie reviewer should help readers determine if they'll like a movie or not. And it appears as if it provides information that establishes this—Sartore is better able to help someone determine that they'll like a movie than Kelly is.

However, note the goal vs. the comparative premise. The goal is to help people determine "whether or not" they'll like a movie. The premise is only about people who will like a movie—we don't learn which of the two reviewers is better at helping people determine they won't like a movie. It's possible that Sartore's negative reviews convince almost everyone that they'll like a given movie, whether they will or not. That would allow it to be true that he has a higher hit rate for those who will like a movie, but he'd utterly fail for those who wouldn't like it. To strengthen this argument, therefore, we should look for an answer that compares Sartore and Kelly on their ability to convince someone they won't like a movie, with it being a tie or with Sartore coming out ahead.

Finally, note that the information about Sartore being more likely to give a negative than positive review is likely a red herring. First, the criteria established on what makes a good reviewer doesn't have anything to with reviews being positive or negative. Second, the statement doesn't compare him to Kelly in this regard.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that Sartore is a better reviewer in another important aspect of the established criteria—he is better able to let people know they won't enjoy a movie. If he can help people pick movies they'll like and avoid ones they won't, then based on the criteria in the stimulus he's a better reviewer.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative conclusions require premises establishing the criteria for the comparison and enough information about everything being compared to know how they meet the criteria. Missing any of those pieces is a flaw in the argument that can be addressed in a correct answer.

Incorrect. A good reviewer, according to the stimulus, is one who helps you assess whether you'd enjoy a movie, not one who actively adds to that enjoyment.

Incorrect. There doesn't need to be overlap in the films reviewed in order to assess who's the better reviewer. It can be established that one person is better than another without them going head-to-head (think about track world records, for instance).