LSAT 5 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular policy is fair.

REASONING: No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject. Political know-how must be learned through apprentice-ship.

ANALYSIS: The argument switches between knowledge of a subject and know-how. Those are two different things. For example, many people know a lot about football (they have knowledge) but would be terrible football players (they have no know-how).

A further problem is that there may be a difference between knowledge of politics and knowledge of political policies.

___________

1. It is a valid generalization. There is nothing wrong with saying someone needs knowledge to be competent in a subject.
2. Specific examples are rarely required. It is perfectly fine to make an argument in general terms.
3. “Apprenticeship” can be used loosely as well as formally.
4. CORRECT. Yes. Know-how is how to get elected, how to debate, etc. Policies on the other hand are often technical.
5. The argument doesn’t make any conclusion about inexperienced politicians.

Recap: The question begins with “No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.