PrepTest 149

Incorrect. This answer reflects only one possible way the argument could hold together. Sure, Robert's argument might have been more reasonable because Britta's was unreasonable. However, Britta's argument could have been very reasonable, but Robert's was even more so. In highlighting only one possibility, this answer isn't necessary for the argument to work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Britta knew the facts better than Robert, but reasonableness of argument is also important in a debate, so Robert and Britta tied in the debate.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus notes two considerations for debate performance—historical knowledge, and having a reasonable argument. Britta won on the former consideration, but the Coach concludes that her and Robert tied. Therefore, Robert's argument must have been more reasonable than Britta's—otherwise, there'd be no way for him to make up the ground he lost in his knowledge of the historical facts.

Answer Explanation:
The established considerations for debate performance are command of historical facts and reasonableness of argument. If Britta won on the former, but the Coach concludes that Robert's performance met Britta's, it must be the case that the reasonableness of his argument was greater.

Key Takeaway:
Relative language doesn't allow you to draw non-relative conclusions or inferences. Here, the language in the stimulus was always on who was more reasonable, who was more historically accurate, and who had the better debate performance. A lot of the answers, however, didn't use relative language—a huge red flag since a more reasonable argument might still be quite unreasonable, much like the shortest member of a basketball team might still be quite tall!

Incorrect. The argument is about the relative merit of the two debate performances (i.e., which was better, or whether they were equally good), so whether or not either was good is out of scope. They could have been equally good while actually both quite bad.

Incorrect. The argument establishes that Britta's command of the historical facts was better than Robert's, which could happen if she had full command of the facts. The argument does assume that Robert didn't have full command (otherwise, Britta's command couldn't have been better), but since this answer brings in Britta, as well, it's incorrect.

Incorrect. Command of the facts is only one aspect of debate performance, according to the stimulus, and not a required one. If both speakers had very poor command of the facts, the stimulus suggests the one with the more reasonable argument would still win, and so this answer is wrong.