Explanation
The debate coach contrasts Britta's better command of historical facts with the evaluation of argument reasonableness, suggesting that when considering how reasonable the debaters' arguments were, Robert's debate performance might be viewed as equal to Britta's. We are tasked with selecting an option that this claim relies on.
A. The coach's statement does not assess the reasonableness of Britta's arguments; it contrasts factual command with argument reasonableness.
B. (Correct Response) For the coach to claim that Robert's debate performance was as good as Britta's, despite Britta's superior command of facts, there must be an underlying assumption that Robert's arguments were more reasonable than Britta's. This assumption balances Robert's deficit in factual command with superior argument reasonableness, leading to an equal evaluation of their overall performances.
C. The debate coach does not explicitly state that good debate performances require very reasonable arguments, nor does the coach's argument necessarily depend on this assumption.
D. The coach does not imply that neither debater had full command of the facts. The acknowledgment of Britta's better command of historical facts negates this option.
E. The coach's argument suggests that winning a debate is not solely determined by command of the facts, as the reasonableness of the arguments is also a factor to consider. Hence, it is not assumed that winning requires having a good command of the facts.
The coach implies a comparison between factual knowledge and the reasonableness of the arguments. By suggesting Robert's performance could be seen as equal to Britta's when reasonableness is considered, the coach relies on the assumption in option B.