PrepTest 149, Section 1, Question 14
Debate coach: Britta's command of the historical facts(55 more words not shown)
The debate coach's argument depends(4 more words not shown)
- ABritta's arguments were(2 more words not shown)
- BRobert's arguments were(4 more words not shown)
- Cgood debate performances(4 more words not shown)
- Dneither Britta nor(8 more words not shown)
- Ewinning a debate(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Knowing more facts isn't the whole debate.
The coach gives us two things to evaluate: command of the facts and how reasonable the arguments are. Britta wins on the first. To bring Robert back to a tie overall by considering the second, he needs an advantage there. If his arguments were only equally reasonable, we'd still have Britta's factual advantage with nothing identified to make up for it.
What we’re looking for
That's the assumption I'd predict: Robert's arguments were more reasonable.
Working the answers
- A
Britta could make reasonable arguments while Robert makes even more reasonable ones. A relative advantage for Robert doesn't require an absolute failure by Britta. Calling her arguments quite unreasonable goes beyond what the coach needs to assume.
- BCorrect
Robert needs the advantage in reasonableness to offset Britta's better command of the facts. If his arguments were no more reasonable than hers, adding that consideration wouldn't explain why the coach treats the overall performances as equally good. B supplies the comparison on which the coach's adjustment depends.
- C
The coach treats reasonableness as something to evaluate, but doesn't set a minimum standard of 'very reasonable' for every good debate performance. Both debaters could have somewhat reasonable arguments, with Robert's better than Britta's. The argument needs that comparison, not C's general threshold.
- D
Britta could have full command of the facts while Robert knew less. The premise only establishes that she did better on that dimension. The coach's argument doesn't require both debaters to fall short of complete knowledge.
- E
This makes a good command of the facts a requirement for winning any debate. The coach doesn't need that universal rule to compare these two performances. Facts matter in this assessment, but the needed assumption concerns Robert's advantage in reasonableness, not a minimum factual qualification for every winner.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.