Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 16:58 It is currently 21 May 2024, 16:58
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4340
Own Kudos [?]: 51530 [21]
Given Kudos: 2326
Location: United States (WA)
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1010
Own Kudos [?]: 6355 [0]
Given Kudos: 178
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Status:Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Posts: 337
Own Kudos [?]: 1905 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE:Information Technology (Health Care)
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 205
Own Kudos [?]: 139 [1]
Given Kudos: 175
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.19
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Why option A is wrong here ?
The premise assumes one characteristic makes politician competent . I guess this the weakness of statement.

Regarding C , We are no discussing about "the social implications of political policies".
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Status:Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Posts: 223
Own Kudos [?]: 553 [1]
Given Kudos: 471
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
1
Kudos
souvik101990 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

Dear Experts,

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 375
Own Kudos [?]: 1558 [2]
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE:Account Management (Education)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
2
Kudos
social implications of political policies"
Why?
because whether a "policy will be fair to all" is a social implication.
Social effects -- effects on society, on people.

smartguy595 there is no generalization about the argument.

No where did the argument say "ONLY by apprenticeship and experience will this happen".

The only generalization was in the first sentence and it is about the INCOMPETENT not the COMPETENT that A refers to.
You can rescan the argument to determine if another generalization was made anywhere.
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Status:Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Posts: 223
Own Kudos [?]: 553 [0]
Given Kudos: 471
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
Nez wrote:
social implications of political policies"
Why?
because whether a "policy will be fair to all" is a social implication.
Social effects -- effects on society, on people.

smartguy595 there is no generalization about the argument.

No where did the argument say "ONLY by apprenticeship and experience will this happen".

The only generalization was in the first sentence and it is about the INCOMPETENT not the COMPETENT that A refers to.
You can rescan the argument to determine if another generalization was made anywhere.

Nez,

Thanks for the explanation.

I am facing trouble with this type of questions.. Any tips please
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 375
Own Kudos [?]: 1558 [0]
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE:Account Management (Education)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
smartguy595 wrote:
Nez wrote:
social implications of political policies"
Why?
because whether a "policy will be fair to all" is a social implication.
Social effects -- effects on society, on people.

smartguy595 there is no generalization about the argument.

No where did the argument say "ONLY by apprenticeship and experience will this happen".

The only generalization was in the first sentence and it is about the INCOMPETENT not the COMPETENT that A refers to.
You can rescan the argument to determine if another generalization was made anywhere.

Nez,

Thanks for the explanation.

I am facing trouble with this type of questions.. Any tips please

Well, I guess all of us gmat students are all "facing problems" in some areas that's why we are here. Keep prepping and answering many questions as possible from the OG and other authentic prep guys. u could use Veritas, Manhattan, e-gmat, Magoosh, EmpowerGMAT. They know their onions too well. Avoid local prep guys.This website also helps www.gmatprepnow.com
Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 102 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.

The argument states that if one does not have knowledge of a subject, he or she is not competent enough to pass a judgment on that subject. It then takes a specific example of politics and states that since political know how involves - a) technical rules b) insight and style through experience and apprenticeship >> only a seasoned politician should be the judge of the fairness of a particular political party. Now, it does state that subject mater knowledge is required but in the example what the argument is intending to apply is that subject knowledge is not something that might require it in the first place. It is about the fairness of a party, analysis of which does not require political expertise and knowledge.

D gives us exactly this weakness - It equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies.

A is incorrect because it is not a generalization and the example is not cited on a generalization. The first statement says "NO ONE" who lacks technical knowledge is competent to pass judgement of the subject. Thus, the example on this basis is initiated correctly but it does not link the know how to the matter adequately.
Manager
Joined: 13 Sep 2021
Posts: 92
Own Kudos [?]: 23 [0]
Given Kudos: 77
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
souvik101990 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

Posting the official answer for anyone who needs it

Only veteran politicians are competent to judge whether a policy is fair, says the author, because competence in passing judgment on a subject requires knowledge of that subject, and only veteran politicians have political know-how. But is political know-how the same “subject” as policy fairness? Is political know- how the field of knowledge that deals with the social implications of legislation? The author seems to think so, but must he be right? That’s the criticism that (D) makes: It’s not obvious that political know-how is the same thing as understanding the social implications of policy, but the argument treats it as such.
(A) attacks the first statement, which is a premise, but the generalization that unknowledgeable people aren’t competent to pass judgment is a very reasonable claim.
(B) Specific examples of how political know-how is acquired aren’t necessary. Few of us would dispute the author’s claim that it’s acquired by watching, and working with, those who have it.
(C) isn’t a weakness; the author simply uses “apprenticeship” metaphorically to imply that politicians learn the ropes from experienced politicians who already possess “know-how.”
(E) isn’t something that the author must be assuming, since the argument concerns who is competent to judge policy, not who actually does so and how.
CEO
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 2576
Own Kudos [?]: 1835 [0]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Re: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment [#permalink]
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 - WRONG. Nothing as such wrong but it just doesn't cross the line to hamper the conclusion in a significant manner. Had conclusion been like - only seasoned politicians are competent to judge a particular political policy - this choice would have had some chance. However, such a conclusion would have been a little absurd.

(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(C) uses the term "apprenticeship" to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship - WRONG. Description is not required since conclusion is about something else which is based upon generalization as stated in first sentence.

(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies - CORRECT. Covers the aspect of being fair to all.

(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians - WRONG. No such situation is ascertainable. Irrelevant.