No one who lacks knowledge

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Description27% picked this

   Relies on a generalization about the characteristic that makes someone competent

   The argument's opening claim ("no one lacking knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment") is a generalization, but it's not the flaw. The argument's problem isn't that it generalizes about competency-and-knowledge; it's that it conflates two different kinds of knowledge once it gets to the conclusion. Calling the generalization itself the flaw misses the actual move.

   27%
2. B

   Bad Description2% picked this

   Fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can

   Whether the argument provides specific examples isn't a logical flaw — it's just a stylistic choice. Lots of valid arguments lack examples, and lots of fallacious ones have plenty. The actual flaw is in the equivocation between political know-how and the understanding required to judge social impact, not in the absence of examples.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Description0% picked this

   Uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe what is seldom a

   The argument uses "apprenticeship" as part of its description of how political know-how is acquired. Whether that's a strict or loose use of the word is a definitional quibble, not the argument's logical flaw. The actual flaw is that the conclusion is about a different kind of expertise (judging fairness) than the premises establish (political practice).

   0%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   Equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of

   Why this is right

   This nails the move. The premises establish that political know-how — the practical skill of doing politics — comes from apprenticeship and experience. But the conclusion is about who can judge whether a policy is fair to all, which is a question about the policy's social implications. The argument silently treats "having political know-how" as if it amounted to "understanding the social implications of policies." But these are different kinds of expertise: one is about how to do politics, the other is about what policies do to society. By equating them, the argument illegitimately concludes that only seasoned politicians can judge fairness.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
5. E

   Bad Assumption2% picked this

   Assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of

   The argument doesn't need to claim inexperienced politicians are guided by experienced ones. The argument is about who is competent to judge a policy's fairness, not about how inexperienced politicians actually behave when setting policy. This describes an assumption the argument doesn't make.

   2%