LSAT 149 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Debate coach: Britta’s command of the historical facts…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Robert’s performance was as good as Rita’s.

REASONING: Rita knew the facts better than Robert. But, we also have to consider reasonableness of the argument.

ANALYSIS: This argument implies that Robert’s arguments were more reasonable. If this isn’t true, then we have no basis for saying Robert equalled Rita: his performance was worse on the only other factor we know about (facts).

___________

1. This is a trap. Britta didn’t have to be unreasonable. She just had to be less reasonable than Robert. So she could be good and he could be great. Unreasonable = bad.
2. CORRECT. If this isn’t true, then how did Robert make up for his worse command of the facts?
   Negation: Robert’s arguments weren’t any better than Rita’s.
3. Surprisingly, the stimulus actually didn’t talk about either of them being “good” at the debate. The coach only said Rita “won”, meaning she was better. It’s possible to be bad and win if your opponent is worse.
    
   Since the argument doesn’t depend on anyone being “good”, this answer isn’t relevant.
    
   This answer is sort of the inverse of A. Both make a relative/absolute error. Good and better aren’t the same thing, and neither are bad and worse.
    
   For example, I’m better than any baby at basketball but that doesn’t make me any good at basketball!
4. This isn’t required. No-one but a very diligent history PhD would likely be in full command of historical facts.
    
   Also, the negation of this hardly changes the statement. For an answer to be right, negating it has to have an impact.
   Negation: Britta knew every fact, and Robert knew every fact but one.
5. This actually weakens the argument, as the author implied facts were not the only debate criterion. If so, you might plausibly win a debate by being really good at all the other criteria.

Recap: The question begins with “Debate coach: Britta’s command of the historical facts”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.