- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat May 20, 2017 9:26 am
#35165
Complete Question Explanation
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (D)
The restaurant owner in this stimulus takes issue with the qualifications of a critic who wrote a
negative review of his restaurant in the newspaper. Apparently, the critic, whose last job was as a
political reporter, acknowledges that he is not an expert in the fields of food or food preparation. So,
while conceding that the critic is a good writer, the owner concludes that the “critic” is not a true
restaurant critic. By analogy, the owner points out that a newspaper would not label someone with no
special training in theater a “drama critic.”
The question stem identifies this as a Main Point question. We can prephrase that the correct
answer choice will contain a restatement of the restaurant owner’s conclusion, that the critic who
panned his restaurant is not a true restaurant critic. You may have had some difficulty isolating the
conclusion because the stimulus contains neither a premise nor a conclusion indicator. In cases
such as this, focus on the relationship between the statements in the stimulus and the word choice.
Here, the phrase “true restaurant critic” implies that the owner is making a judgment regarding the
critic’s qualifications. The other statements in the stimulus provide facts concerning the critic’s
qualifications. By taking that context into consideration, we can understand that the owner’s
conclusion is that the critic is not a true restaurant critic.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice restates one of the argument’s premises.
Answer choice (B): This too is a restatement of a premise supporting the owner’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): Here, the answer choice describes the concession made by the owner regarding
the general writing ability of the critic.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the author’s conclusion,
consistent with our prephrase.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice contains the author’s analogy invoking the case of a
purported drama critic with no expertise in theater.
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (D)
The restaurant owner in this stimulus takes issue with the qualifications of a critic who wrote a
negative review of his restaurant in the newspaper. Apparently, the critic, whose last job was as a
political reporter, acknowledges that he is not an expert in the fields of food or food preparation. So,
while conceding that the critic is a good writer, the owner concludes that the “critic” is not a true
restaurant critic. By analogy, the owner points out that a newspaper would not label someone with no
special training in theater a “drama critic.”
The question stem identifies this as a Main Point question. We can prephrase that the correct
answer choice will contain a restatement of the restaurant owner’s conclusion, that the critic who
panned his restaurant is not a true restaurant critic. You may have had some difficulty isolating the
conclusion because the stimulus contains neither a premise nor a conclusion indicator. In cases
such as this, focus on the relationship between the statements in the stimulus and the word choice.
Here, the phrase “true restaurant critic” implies that the owner is making a judgment regarding the
critic’s qualifications. The other statements in the stimulus provide facts concerning the critic’s
qualifications. By taking that context into consideration, we can understand that the owner’s
conclusion is that the critic is not a true restaurant critic.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice restates one of the argument’s premises.
Answer choice (B): This too is a restatement of a premise supporting the owner’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): Here, the answer choice describes the concession made by the owner regarding
the general writing ability of the critic.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the author’s conclusion,
consistent with our prephrase.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice contains the author’s analogy invoking the case of a
purported drama critic with no expertise in theater.