Anything other than the KQs provided are purely my point of view and I will try exploring the other point of view as well.
First of all start with defining the key terms. In this prompt the key terms that should stick out and stick out to me is the words 'fact', 'theory' and 'needed'
What is Knowledge The working definition I like to use is that Knowledge is just a Justified True Belief. which means as long as we believe in it and that its justified with truth, it is our knowledge. It might not be shared knowledge but at least our personal knowledge
I would first begin by brainstorming of situations where facts are not needed to establish theories and how theories are not needed to make sense of facts. (I come up with little to none as most examples come up with the argument of a little fact no matter how bias, let me know if you do. note: it really depends on your definition of "fact")
What is a FACT? (KQ) [is it personal knowledge? is it shared knowledge? or is it both?]
One must not confuse Fact with Knowledge, the definition of a fact is what is KNOWN or PROVEN to be true which to me means it has to be shared knowledge that is fairly agreed on, which is different from Knowledge itself. and remember that just cause we know something does not mean it is not flawed, as in class you should have explored the flaws of some WOKs, etc.
From this brings the question of what is a theory and how do they explain facts? (KQ) [if facts are just shared knowledge then there are situations where we use personal knowledge to form theories of what is happening or going to happen around us]
Theories - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
To me, by this definition theories are used in mainly two ways and to form a Solid theory they must do both which includes correlation and coherence.
which begs the KQ - "Are theories and assumptions formed through facts always coherent and explain the facts?"
According to the prompt in order to form a theory it must be based in fact. In science this is mostly true as the knowledge we collect is mostly quantitative through Active experimentation or Passive observation.
Even from day to day we come up with theories no matter how bias based on what facts we have. Whether our theory is soundly based on a multitude of evidence or just a little, it is still a theory based in fact. A common example would be common racism against people of colour. Constantly day to day the media presents us with facts of coloured people raping, stealing, shooting and generally committing crimes. And many people take the fact that because this minority of coloured people are doing these things they then form a theory that all coloured people must be that way. Even though the theory is honestly bullshit and extremely ignorant, it is based in fact.
Above is an example of what I would call a correlation based theory with no coherence. While the theory is based on a FACT it is not a coherent or consistent theory (as highlighted in the previous bracket), it also does predict but it does not explain why a coloured person would do that.
My conclusion would be that the statement is true however just because we form theories on facts that have correlation it does not mean there is coherence or sound logic in our theories and when forming such theories we double check our facts.
In conclusion, ask yourself what is a FACT and what a is THEORY and then you will be able to tackle and take a stance on the prompt. For me personally I feel like the the statement is generally correct as my definition of a Fact is just known knowledge, including both personal and shared knowledge but the statement is true we have to make sure we cross check and triple check our facts so we can avoid forming biased Theories
TL;DR - Start with defining what is a fact and what is a theory.
and a solid knowledge question to explore this prompt is "Are theories and assumptions formed through facts always coherent and explain the facts?"
If you view facts as shared knowledge you should aim to find RLS where we apply pure personal knowledge to form theories (day to day life) making a solid argument against the prompt.
but if you view facts as personal and shared knowledge as even the littlest knowledge can be a fact, you'd probably find yourself agreeing with the prompt and will have to make the argument of how even the smallest of knowledge is what we know and can be considered a fact.
In general, I dislike this prompt because it comes down to the concept of "what is a fact", "theories that are based on correlation and/or coherence" and how ignorant a person is.
Not sure how much this will help haha I'm just kind of vomitting my ideas out as this isn't a prompt I would choose haha not saying don't do it! different prompts fit different people.