Q2 - Rose: Let's not see the movie Winter Fields

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw (misinterpretation = what was the error in listening)

Stimulus Breakdown:
R's CONC: Let's not see WF.
R's EVID: It got one of the worst reviews I've seen in the local paper.
Chester: Why would a poorly written review affect your decision to see a movie, especially when all the sections of that paper are poorly written?

Answer Anticipation:
Chester's response should confuse us at first. He's saying, "Why would a bad review make you not want to see the movie?" Huh? Isn't it obvious, Chester? If the movie got a bad review, then it probably stinks, and I don't wanna waste my money on a stinky movie.

And why is he talking about how well written other parts of the paper are?

Ohhhhhh, he's interpreting "worst review" as "most badly written review", whereas Rose meant "the most scathing, negative review of a movie".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Used consistently

(B) Misinterpreting this would have forced Chester to say something like, "Who threw the review at you? Were you wearing a baseball glove"

(C) Used consistently

(D) YES, Rose means "the movie got the lowest rating". Chester hears, "the person who wrote it was a terrible writer".

(E) Nothing Chester says seems to relate to a different perception of time.

Takeaway/Pattern: Because the 2nd person is MIS-interpreting the first person, we should potentially try to defend person 1's ideas and attack person 2's ideas. It helps put us into the right mindset for seeing where person 2 went wrong. (These questions are very rare.)

#officialexplanation