Alright, let's identify the conclusion and the premise. The premise is: "No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject." Let's write this out.
If you don't have knowledge of on a subject, then you are not competent to pass judgement on that subject.
PR#1: notK - > notCPJ CPJ - > K
The conclusion is: "only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular political policy is fair to all."
If you are competent to pass judgement on whether a particular policy is fair to all, then you are a seasoned politician.
C: CPJ - > SP notSP - > notCPJ
Let's think about this. To be competent to pass judgment, you must have knowledge. We know that seasoned politicians have political know-how, but we don't know whether they have knowledge of judging whether a particular political policy is fair to all. The argument makes a sudden jump by interchanging political know-how with knowledge of judging fairness. Therefore, we are faced with an equivocation flaw. Our correct answer will most likely speak to this.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect because the argument is not mis-applying a generalization (our principle rule) in deciding whether someone is competent to pass judgement, rather it is misinterpreting the generalization by wrongly equivocating two different variables.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
RichardJune 22, 2015
So would the passage be with no errors in reasoning if we correct the last sentence in the passage to be "only seasoned politicians are competent to judge a particular political policy." Or would this change make it less erroneous than it was, considering the addition of "fair to all" is unjustified? Thanks!
NazJune 24, 2015
This would only continue to keep the passage erroneous. Remember, the premise is telling us, if you are competent to pass judgment on a topic, then you are knowledgeable about that topic.
That doesn't necessarily mean that if you are competent to pass judgment on political policy that you are a seasoned politician. It merely means that you are knowledgeable on politics. Does one who is knowledgeable on politics necessarily have to be a seasoned politician? No, of course not.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
