Q11 - No one who lacks knowledge

[b91302310]

Hi,

I could understand why (D) is correct. However, I am not quite sure why (A) is wrong. Could anyone explain it?


Thanks

[giladedelman]

Good question! Let me first walk through the whole problem, so everyone's on the same page.

We're told that "no one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject," and that political know-how is something learned through apprenticeship and experience. From these premises, the argument concludes that only seasoned politicians are competent to judge the fairness of political policies.

But wait! Is "political know-how" the same thing as knowledge of whatever subject a particular policy pertains to? Couldn't you have knowledge that's relevant to a policy without having political know-how?

Answer (D) is correct because it addresses this gap: the argument wrongly equates political know-how with knowledge of a subject.

Now, why is (A) incorrect? Well, if it were correct, then every argument that included a conditional (a.k.a. absolute) statement in its premises would be flawed on that basis. But there's nothing wrong with basing an argument on a statement of this type.

What can be a flaw is when an argument generalizes in the sense of making unwarranted, broad inferences on the basis of a particular example. Like if I argued, "Hot dogs are delicious, therefore all food is delicious." That's not a valid argument because I'm assuming that the characteristics of one member of a group apply to all members of that group.

But this argument doesn't do that. It just tells us, as fact, that knowledge of a subject is necessary for someone to pass judgment on it.

The other incorrect answers are easier to rule out.

(B) is incorrect because an argument is not obligated to provide specific examples.

(C) is out of scope. We have no idea whether the term "apprenticeship" is accurately applied here.

(E) is also out of scope. The relationship between experienced and inexperienced politicians has no bearing on the argument.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[kiwistory]

Hi! I have a further question about this problem that I hope you guys can help me with!

So the 1st sentence in the Q seems to introduce a conditional statement of


-knowledge -> -competency to pass judgement

the argument continues to tell that

seasoned politician -> "knowledge" -> competent to pass judgement

we already found out from the above answer that the flaw in the question is in equating political know-how with "knowledge" about political policy. However even with these flaws fixed, wouldn't the argument still be flawed in that it interchanges the sufficient and necessary conditions?
if I had the original conditional correct, then

competency to pass judgement -> knowledge.

however the author states

knowledge -> competency to pass judgement

as his / her final conclusion. So as stated above, didn't the author make a 2nd flaw in that they mixed up the sufficient / necessary?

... Of course I could be wrong from the get-go, if so please let me know! this is driving me insane.

[giladedelman]

Two things. First, arguments can (and often do) have multiple flaws. The correct answer choice will only express one. That's fine. The question never says, "which one is the ONLY flaw?"

Second, you're reversing the logic of the conclusion. The argument doesn't say that if you're a seasoned politician, you're competent to judge; it says only seasoned politicians can judge. So,

competent --> seasoned politician

The link it wants is

knowledge --> seasoned politician

~that is, only a seasoned politician has knowledge of policy~

which is achieved by equating that knowledge with political know-how.

You dig?

[kiwistory]

wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that, thanks so much for the clear explanation!


I have bit of trouble trying figure out which term is modified by the necessary indicator words (like only or must). I'll try to brush up on it some more. thanks for the quick response!

[lhermary]

Shouldn't the conditional logic be

lacks knowledge -> ~competent
Political knowledge ->insight + style learned through experience
competent -> seasoned politician

In this case where's gap

[giladedelman]

Careful, you're mistakenly equating "knowledge of a subject" with "political know-how," which is exactly the flaw in this argument.

[boy5237]

Here is my 2cent:

Lack knowledge -> ~competent
---
Therefore, competent -> seasoned politicians

Well... what's the assumption here?

Assumption is that the seasoned politicians has the knowledge, which is the actual flaw committed in this argument.

Well... do we know if they have the knowledge?

The second premise says that they have all these know-hows and experiences. Sure... they are a form of knowledge... cool...

But wait..

The conclusion also says they are competent in judging whether a particular policy is fair to all.

Does the argument actually prove the fact that their "know-hows" allow them to be competent at judging the fairness of a policy? Not sure....

That's why it's D: equivocation fallacy.

[WaltGrace1983]

Where does it say the "seasoned politicians" have "political know-how?" There is a definite gap here and I don't understand how we can merely conclude that seasoned politicians have this trait.

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

I would disagree. Seasoned means "accustomed to particular conditions; experienced." Know-how "is practical knowledge or skill." It is much more of a stretch to assume that someone with experience would NOT have practical knowledge than to assume that someone with experience would HAVE practical knowledge.

-t

[onguyen228]

The way I look at this question is that the author introduces a principle, "No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject." According to the author, if principle is true then it should also be true that if a political know-how is experienced (not lacking knowledge), then a season politician is competent to judge on a particular political policy.

Political know-how = season politician. I think it is one in the same; the author isn't referring to two different subgroups of people.

The flaw is that just because a political know-how has general knowledge of politics through experience doesn't mean he is capable of making decisions on specialized cases of political policy. It is almost like a division error. For instance, say a person has knowledge of politics as a whole, then assume that he should have competence to judge the subgroups of politics.

Sufficient/necessary condition:
If a person is knowledgeable of a subject, then he is competent to pass judgment on that subject.

Flawed analogy:
If a person (political know-how) is knowledgeable of a subject (politics), then he (season politician) is competent to pass judgment on that particular matter of that subject (political policy).

Do you see the difference? I think the most important part is to notice the shift in subject: politics ---> particular political policy.

I hope this makes sense.

[WaltGrace1983]

Now, why is (A) incorrect? Well, if it were correct, then every argument that included a conditional (a.k.a. absolute) statement in its premises would be flawed on that basis. But there's nothing wrong with basing an argument on a statement of this type.

What can be a flaw is when an argument generalizes in the sense of making unwarranted, broad inferences on the basis of a particular example. Like if I argued, "Hot dogs are delicious, therefore all food is delicious." That's not a valid argument because I'm assuming that the characteristics of one member of a group apply to all members of that group.

I am a bit confused on what you mean in the first part here. I eliminated (A) because the author never really makes a "generalization," aka taking something that is true for one thing and saying that it is true for another, different, thing.

ALSO, we don't actually know what makes someone competent to pass judgment from this stimulus. We know that knowledge is NECESSARY for competence but never do we get (_______________ → Competent).

[disguise_sky]

Is the word "only" another flaw or are we supposed to make an implicit assumption that "only seasoned politicians have political know-how"? It seems to me that the word "only" comes out of nowhere.
Could anyone clarify it for me? Thanks for your help!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Some great thoughts and interesting questions are popping up in this thread!

Political know-how = season politician. I think it is one in the same; the author isn't referring to two different subgroups of people.

Be careful here! There's actually an additional flaw in the argument: the author assumes that only seasoned politicians are able to get apprenticed and experienced, and thus gain political know-how. This flaw is not addressed in the answer choices, but it's good to be aware of it!

(Sidenote: I agree with Tommy above that it's reasonable to think that seasoned politicians DO have this know-how. It's just not valid to assume that they are the ONLY ones who have this know-how....)

The flaw is that just because a political know-how has general knowledge of politics through experience doesn't mean he is capable of making decisions on specialized cases of political policy. It is almost like a division error. For instance, say a person has knowledge of politics as a whole, then assume that he should have competence to judge the subgroups of politics.
<snip>
Do you see the difference? I think the most important part is to notice the shift in subject: politics ---> particular political policy.

This is close, but needs some tweaking: it's not so much a general-to-specific switch, but one of subject matter. We flip from political knowledge to judging the fairness of a policy. Fairness is a totally difference subject matter than 'political know-how'! That's why the answer refers to it as "social implications", not just 'knowledge of political policies'.

Keep up the hard work!

I am a bit confused on what you mean in the first part here. I eliminated (A) because the author never really makes a "generalization," aka taking something that is true for one thing and saying that it is true for another, different, thing.

ALSO, we don't actually know what makes someone competent to pass judgment from this stimulus. We know that knowledge is NECESSARY for competence but never do we get (_______________ → Competent).

Great question, WaltGrace1983! Giladedelman is using the term 'generalization' the way that many people casually use the term - any broad/blanket statement (in either premise OR conclusion). You're using a much more strict definition of the term - an overly broad/blanket conclusion, supported only by narrow/specific examples.

While your definition is a perfectly valid definition of 'generalization', because so many people use 'generalization' simply to mean any broad/blanket statement, I'd generally be wary of relying on the narrower definition. Particularly since (A) says the argument "relies on" a generalization, I'm going to keep myself open to the broader definition.

And that's where giladedelman's next point comes in - even if we're using the looser definition of 'generalization', and thus describe this argument as relying on one ("No one who..."), that's not a flaw. It's not inherently bad to use blanket statements as premises. "Generalizations" are only BAD things when they are broad conclusions without adequate support.

So, using either definition of 'generalization', (A) is wrong: either it doesn't make a generalization (broad conclusion), or it does (broad premise) and that's not a flaw.

You're also completely correct that while there is arguably a generalization (broad premise), it's not about what guarantees competence, but rather what is required for competence. So, even if we accept the use of the term 'generalization', this answer mischaracterizes the broad statement relied on.

Nice work!

Is the word "only" another flaw or are we supposed to make an implicit assumption that "only seasoned politicians have political know-how"? It seems to me that the word "only" comes out of nowhere.
Could anyone clarify it for me? Thanks for your help!

You're completely right! As I said above in my response to onguyen228, this is absolutely an additional flaw! The author is assuming that only seasonsed politicians are able to get the experience required for 'knowledge/know-how'!

Remember, arguments can have multiple flaws, and an answer choice may only address one of them!

Please let me know if this helps clear up some points of confusion!