Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S1 · Q14 Debate coach: Brotta's

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Debate coach: Britta’s command of the historical facts was better than Robert’s, and that led to the distinct impression that Britta won the debate.

Conclusion

Robert's debate performance was as good as Britta's.

Evidence

Sure Britta's command of historical facts was better and so that gave people the impression that Britta won.

But we should also consider how reasonable the arguments were, regardless of whether factual support was provided.

Evaluate

Okay, let's consider how reasonable the arguments were: were Robert's arguments more reasonable?

The author seems to be assuming yes.

If Robert doesn't have an advantage in that category, then Britta's advantage in the "command of facts" category would make her the winner.

The author also has to assume that winning the "reasonableness" category can tie you with someone who won the "command of the facts" category (the fact that each of them would win one category doesn't mean that Robert's performance was as good, if we weight the importance of command of the facts higher than we weight the importance of reasonableness).

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out the author's assumption that Robert's arguments were more reasonable than Britta's.

Or look for a defender answer that sounds like, .

14.

The debate coach's argument depends on the assumption that

  1. Britta’s arguments were quite unreasonable

    Too Strong: quite unreasonable

    The author doesn't have to assume in absolute terms that Britta's arguments were unreasonable. He just needs to assume that Robert's arguments were at least as reasonable.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Robert’s arguments were more reasonable

    Why this is right

    In order for the author to think that Robert had just as good a performance as Britta, when he concedes that Robert lost the “battle of the facts”, he must be assuming that Robert won the “battle of the reasonableness”. If we were to negate this, saying “Robert's arguments weren't any more reasonable than Britta's”, that would work as an Objection because we could say, “at best, Robert tied Britta in terms of reasonableness, and Robert lost in terms of facts, so how can we say that Robert did just as good?”

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

  3. good debate performances require very

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: require / very reasonable Relative vs. Absolute The author doesn't need to assume that good performances require very reasonable arguments. Negating this would basically mean, “there has been at least one good debate performance that only had reasonable (not VERY reasonable) arguments. That's no objection. Furthermore, our author isn't actually try to label either person's performance good (absolute), just as good (relative).

    18% picked this

  4. neither Britta nor Robert was

    Too Specific: full command

    The author is conceding that Robert wasn't in full command of the facts (since he grants that Britta's command was better), but the author might accept that Britta was in full command of the facts. Thus, negating this answer wouldn't turn into any sort of objection.

    1% picked this

  5. winning a debate requires having

    Too Strong: requires Opposite

    The author hasn't committed himself to any stringent rules about what winning a debate requires, and if anything this assumption would work against his argument, since Britta had a better command of the facts.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free