#11 - No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi MJB,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are describing the term political know-how" as "general knowledge." Let me know if I am mistaken in how I am reading that part of your post.

You are right that we should not equate knowing the social implications of political policies with political know-how. Since this question is asking us to identify a flaw with the speaker's argument, it is correct to say that the major weakeness of the argument is to equate those two ideas.

I think you may have had some confusion about what the answer choice should do in this question. Since we are asked to pick out a major weakness, we want to select the answer choice that describes a mistake in reasoning that the speaker made. If your issue is something else, let me know and I'll try to address it as soon as I can.

[Blueballoon5%]

Hello! I got this question wrong, mostly because I was confused with the wording in answer choice D, particularly the phrase: "... understanding the social implications of political policies." I crossed out answer choice D because I didn't see "social implications" anywhere in the stimulus. The stimulus discussed (1) in the first sentence, "... competent to pass judgement on that subject," and (2) in the last sentence, "... whether a particular political policy is fair to all." I don't see how we are supposed to read these sentences in the stimulus and make the leap towards "social implications."

Hope you can help! Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

"Fair to all" IS a "social implication," blueballoon! When we talk about social implications we're talking about the implications for society, which includes abstract concepts like fairness, justice, dignity, etc. This would be in contrast to, say, economic or technical implications - does something stimulate the economy, does a proposed solution for relieving traffic congestion actually work, etc.

That concept of what is "social" comes up fairly frequently, so it's good you asked! Think of the term the way a philosopher or sociologist might use it, and it will make more sense to you when you see it. Unless, of course, it is used in a stimulus about whether an individual is social or anti-social - then it takes on a different meaning, having to do with being outgoing and personable or introverted and withdrawn, perhaps.

I hope that helps!

[ashpine17]

Does the first sentence about knowledge really matter? the gap seems to be between political know how and knowing the implications of social policy. Is "judging whether a particular policy is fair to all" supposed to be synonymous with knowing the implications of social policy?

[Robert Carroll]

Ash,

The first statement is extremely important. It sets up a conditional: knowledge of a subject competent to pass judgment. Via the contrapositive, we could say that only people with knowledge of a subject are competent to pass judgment. The author's argument fails because it equates political know-how with knowledge of the fairness of a political policy. The only reason the author thought the argument worked was by making that mistake, then using the contrapositive of the conditional. So it's essential to the way the author thought the argument worked that that conditional relationship be used.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

could I think of this question as both a necessary and sufficient assumption type question?

[Robert Carroll]

Ash,

For an Assumption or Justify question, you're trying to help the argument. Here, you're trying to find out what's wrong with the argument. That's why this is Flaw, and that's very different from an Assumption or Justify.

Robert Carroll

[Jefferson9921]

Was the conditional aspect of this argument kind of a distraction? Because the flaw really hinges on the undue equivalence drawn between political know-how and being able to judge whether a political policy is fair to all. I spent so much time on this question worried about unpacking the conditionals that I initially missed the flaw.

[katehos]

Hi Jefferson,

Though the flaw in this scenario is not a pure flaw in conditional reasoning like Mistaken Negation or Mistaken Reversal, the conditional reasoning is not so much a distraction, but rather an integral part of understanding why the author is incorrect. Isolating the flaw requires understanding the conditional as a rule the author is attempting to follow, since you can then see why the author falsely equated 'know-how' with knowledge about 'fairness' -- great job pointing that out!

It can be easy to get caught up in trying to find a Mistaken Negation or Mistaken Reversal when we see conditional reasoning in Flaw questions (usually, that is the flaw), so taking a step back to understand the relationship between the conditional statement and the argument as a whole is incredibly important!

Hope that helps!

[ellenolmore]

My confusion with D lies in the wording that says "social implications." I have been trying not to focus on what could be implied from the stimulus but rather go with exactly what it states, and the stimulus doesn't say anything about social implications. That is my struggle with this answer choice, despite the rest of the answer choice making sense to me. If someone could explain this to me, that would be great. I struggle with specific terms in answer choices and usually designate them as a loser rather than a contender because of certain specific terms (like social implications or something like "absurdly" when the tone does not match such a description). Hopefully, that makes sense. Thank you!