LSAT 146 – Section 1 – Question 12

LSAT 146 - Section 1 - Question 12

June 2016

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:23

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT146 S1 Q12
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
155
B
1%
160
C
75%
165
D
6%
159
E
14%
162
136
149
163
 +Medium 149.45 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. A movie review should help readers determine whether or not they are apt to enjoy the movie, and 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, even though Sartore is more likely to give a movie an unfavorable review than a favorable one.

Summarize Argument

The author argues that Sartore is a better movie reviewer than Kelly. The author supports this by asserting that a quality of good movie reviewers is helping readers determine whether or not they will enjoy the movie. What’s more, Sartore fulfils this quality better than Kelly does because Sartore’s reviews are more likely than Kelly’s to make a reader realize what movies they will probably enjoy.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that helping readers to determine whether they will enjoy a movie or not is the most important thing that movie reviews should do.

The author also assumes that a person who is likely not to enjoy a movie is equally or more likely to realize this by reading a review by Sartore compared to a review by Kelly.

A
Sartore has technical knowledge of film, whereas Kelly is merely a fan.

This doesn’t strengthen, since the argument only defines a good movie reviewer based on the outcome of their reviews, i.e. helping readers determine which movies they will or won’t like. The background of the movie reviewers is irrelevant.

B
Most of Kelly’s movie reviews are unfavorable to the movie being reviewed.

It’s irrelevant to the argument whether most of the reviews of either critic are positive or negative, as long as the reviews fulfil the criterion of helping readers determine whether or not they will enjoy the movie.

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

This strengthens the argument by affirming the assumption that Sartore helps more people than Kelly not just with determining which movies they will enjoy, but also which movies they won’t enjoy.

D
Reading a movie review by Sartore will usually help one to enjoy the movie more than one otherwise would have.

This does not strengthen, because the author never claims that a movie review changing the reader’s enjoyment of the movie influences whether the review is good or not.

E
Most of the movies that Sartore reviews are also reviewed by Kelly.

This is irrelevant, as the argument only compares Sartore and Kelly based on whether their reviews of a given movie will be more likely to help a reader determine whether they would enjoy that movie. It doesn’t matter how much overlap there is between the movies they review.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 146 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply