|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 101
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass [#permalink]
 12 Feb 2008, 14:09
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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
(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired
(C) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship
(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies
(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians
Please provide your reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR (judgment ) [#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 14:35
az780 wrote: 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
(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired
(C) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship
(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies
(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians
Please provide your reasoning. I go with D. The premises are that you must have knowledge of a subject to pass judgement on it and that political know-how is learned through experience. Therefore you must have experince to pass judgement on a political policy. The assumption is that a politician and political policy is the same thing. You could be an environmentalist and know a lot more about whether an environmental policy is fair to all than a politician does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 317
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR (judgment ) [#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 15:01
I go with D.
Conclusion: only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular political policy is fair to all
Premise: Political know how is a matter of insight and style learned through apprenticeship and experience
Counter Argument : Political policies may involve decisions concerning National Security, the economy etc. It won't be wise for a politician to make suchj a decision on his/her own. Isn't it the norm for politicians to have a team of special advisers who they consult regarding such issues and their social implications? Therfore political knowhow cannot be equated to knowing the social implication of political policies.
Thus answer choice D. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 348
Location: Greater New York City area
Schools: Tuck, Ross (R1), Duke, Tepper, ISB (R2), Kenan Flagler (R2)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR (judgment ) [#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 20:16
az780 wrote: 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
(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired
(C) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship
(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies
(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians
Please provide your reasoning. For a while I was stuck between A and D. But then D exactly hits the nail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3594
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 230
Kudos [?]:
1299
[0], given: 346
|
Re: CR (judgment ) [#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 21:54
I also was stuck between A and D. Can anybody clearly explain why A is wrong?
_________________
iOS/Android: GMAT ToolKit - The bestselling GMAT prep app | GMAT Club (free) | PrepGame | GRE ToolKit | LSAT ToolKit
PROMO: Are you an exiting GMAT ToolKit (iOS) user? Get GMAT ToolKit 2 (iOS) for free* (read more)
Math: GMAT Math Book ||| General: GMATTimer ||| Chicago Booth: Slide Presentation
The People Who Are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World, Are the Ones Who Do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR (judgment ) [#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 22:22
Two metaphors are compared:
Political Know-how [emphasize] vs. technical rues
[Emphasize]Seasoned politician is competent to make decision vs. politician who acquires Knowledge learned through apprenticeship/experience.
Clearly Political Know-how and Seasoned politician equally emphasized
(A) relies on a generalization about the characteristic that makes someone competent to pass judgment[ Definitely not - as per argument seasoned politician is competent to make political decision for better good to all – eliminate it]
(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired [Acquiring is out of scope of argument – eliminate it]
(C) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship [Seasoned political process definitely not a formalized process – eliminate it]
(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies [Hold it]
(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians [Nothing that is assumed or mentioned in the argument, on contrary it is assumed that seasoned politician has political know-how – eliminate it]
Answer: D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR (judgment )
[#permalink]
12 Feb 2008, 22:22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
