December 2017 LSAT Section 1 Question 14

Debate coach: Britta's command of the historical facts was better than Robert's, and that led to the distinct impress...

Sidra on August 21, 2019

B v. C

Why is it B and not C? If the debate coach's argument depends on the assumption that Roberts arguments were MORE REASONABLE than Britta's, doesn't that mean his performance was better than hers and not "as good as" hers? (as the coach states?)

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina on August 25, 2019

@Sidra,

No, because the overall performance depends on two factors - command of the facts and reasonableness of the arguments. B had a better command of the facts, but the coach concludes that R's performance was as good as B's, meaning R's arguments must have been more reasonable.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

eishamaqbool on January 20, 2021

i still dont understand why B is a better option