#14 - Debate coach: Britta’s command of the historical facts

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[BostonLawGuy]

I had a tough time with this question. The author states that Robert's debate performance was AS GOOD as Britta's.

I'm not sure why it must be assumed that Robert's arguments were MORE reasonable than Britta's. Necessary assumptions should be specific and narrow, not broad, so I did not choose this answer.

I wonder if it's because Britta is better in "historical facts" so for Robert to be AS GOOD, he had to compensate for her historical fact performance and be better at debate performance?

When I negated "C" the argument seemed to fall apart. So, I wrongly choose C.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi BostonLawGuy,
Your reasoning for why B is the right answer is correct.
The argument is that Britta's history is better than Robert's history and that makes her overall debate better than Robert. But then this is countered by the claim that reasonableness should be taken into account and if that was done their debates would have been equal. That would require Robert's reasonableness to be better than Britta's reasonableness if it wasn't then Britta's overall debate would have still been better.

Let's throw some numbers in here. On a scale of 1-5:
Britta's history- 4,
Robert's history- 2

If Britta's reasonableness were better:
Britta's reasonableness-4
Robert's reasonableness-3
Britta would still win the overall debate: Britta- 8; Robert- 5

If Britta's reasonableness were the same:
Britta's reasonableness- 4
Robert's reasonableness- 4
Britta would still win the overall debate: Britta- 8; Robert- 6

If Britta's reasonableness were worse:
Britta's reasonableness- 3
Robert's reasonableness- 4
Britta and Robert's overall debates are the same: Britta- 7; Robert- 7

So, the only way you can get them to have an equal overall debate is for Robert to be more reasonable than Britta.

Negating C would not hurt the argument because we don't know how reasonable that Robert was, we only know that the author feels he was more reasonable than Britta. Britta's arguments may have been completely unreasonable, in which case Robert would only need to be slightly reasonable in order to be better than her. This would mean neither of them were "very reasonable" which Answer C requires.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[chloemeyers]

Hi!

I understand the explanation for why Robert has to compensate, and I initially chose B because of that reason, but I changed my answer last minute because of the clause "regardless of their ability to bring the facts to bear in those arguments." This gave me the impression that Robert and Britta's command of historical facts had no baring on the reasonableness of their debates, and therefore Robert wouldn't need to compensate so hypothetically he and Britta could have equally reasonable arguments, so I changed my answer to E. My reasoning behind E was that since Britta won due to her superior command of historical facts, having a good command of historical facts is necessary to winning.

Thanks so much!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Chloe!

Remember to focus on the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion here is that Robert's debate performance was as good as Britta's (when you take reasonableness into consideration). So we're looking for an answer choice that is necessary to the conclusion that Robert's debate performance was as good as Britta's. Answer choice (E) has nothing to do with that conclusion and so is not necessary for it. Answer choice (E) may be necessary for Britta to win the debate, but it is not necessary for the argument, which is that Robert's debate performance was as good as Britta's. Always focus on that conclusion!

"Regardless of their ability to bring the facts to bear in those arguments" just refers to the author's contention that "reasonableness" should be a separate consideration from "command of facts." Both can contribute to how their debate performance is assessed, even if they are considered as separate skills.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey