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

Dear Experts,

Please advise why option A is incorrect

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.

In this argument we see that we start from "one can judge subject that he or she know" and than "politics should be experienced" and "only politicians can judge whether political policy fair for all"
So argument says that only politicians can judge fairness of policy.

A) I think that we have correct definiton of experienced politic, so this is incorrect
B) We don't need to know how exactly politic became a politic. Incorrect
C) Can't understand completely this premise, but I don't see any problems with use of word "apprenticeship" in this argument
D) This premise point to the weak place of our argument. Correct
E) Argument doesn't contain any information about who set the policy so this premise out of scope. Incorrect

the argument is devilish enough:
fact 1: subject knowledge--> pass jusgement
fact2: politics learnt through apprenticeship --> know a lot about politics to pass judgement on fairness of a policy.

learning politics in some way is related to fairness of a policy ( that is all i could understand in 50 seconds, let's POE)
A. Actually it makes sense. It is saying the truth so can't be a weakener
B. an example of political learnings is not required per se
C. Tough wordings, hmm, let's leave it aside as of now
D. Something is about this choice but can't make out right away
E. Crap!! not required to know how politicians learn and advice.

Now at a second look , D says political know how ---> social implication of a policy ( in some way it can judge whether a policy is fair or not)
if so, then this is a flaw

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

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.

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.

Answer D.