No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject. Since political know-how is a matter, not of adhering to technical rules, but of insight and style learned through apprenticeship and experience, only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular political policy is fair to all.
A major weakness of the argument is that it
(A) relies on a generalization about the characteristic that makes someone competent to pass judgment -- apprenticeship and personal experiences are not generalized,rather specific to a politician. POE.

(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired POE
(C) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship POE

(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies -- This exploits the gap between professional know how and ground realities of the implications of a policy. Best suited.

(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the
advice of more experienced politicians -- Argument talks about seasoned politicians gaining experience through apprenticeship. Inexperienced politicians are not the focus,rather the political know how for judging the implications of a policy is. Hence E is POE.

Whats wrong iwth E ?