Passage Summary: Sartore is better at his job than Kelly because his writing helps people figure out if they'll actually like a movie, even if he's usually a tough critic.

Conclusion: Sartore is a superior movie reviewer compared to Kelly.

Reasoning: The primary goal of a review is to help readers predict their own enjoyment, and Sartore's reviews are more effective at helping likely-to-enjoy readers identify that potential, even though Sartore is generally more critical.

Analysis: The argument defines a 'better' reviewer based on their ability to help readers predict enjoyment. To strengthen this, we need to bolster the link between Sartore's specific performance and this definition of quality. Since the premise focuses on people who *would* enjoy the movie, look for an answer that addresses those who *wouldn't* enjoy it, or one that confirms Sartore's negative reviews don't hinder the reader's ability to judge for themselves. A good reviewer shouldn't just be a cheerleader; they need to be an accurate mirror for the audience's tastes.