Logical Reasoning

PT5 · S1 · Q11 No one who lacks knowledge

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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

Conclusion

Only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular political policy is fair to all.

Evidence

(1) No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject. (2) Political know-how is not a matter of adhering to technical rules but of insight and style learned through apprenticeship and experience.

Evaluate

The argument's logic: only those with knowledge can judge; political know-how is acquired through apprenticeship and experience; therefore only seasoned politicians (who have that apprenticeship and experience) are competent to judge whether a policy is fair to all.

The slippery move is at the conclusion. "Fair to all" is a question about social impact and ethics — about how a policy affects different groups in society. The argument has shown that political know-how (the practical skill of doing politics) requires apprenticeship, but it never establishes that judging fairness requires that same know-how. The argument quietly equates "knowing how to do politics" with "understanding the social implications of policies" — and those aren't the same kind of knowledge. A philosopher, an economist, or an affected citizen might have plenty of expertise on policy fairness without ever apprenticing as a politician.

Goal

Find an answer that names this conflation: the argument equates political know-how (insight/style) with the kind of understanding needed to judge social implications and fairness.

11.

A major weakness of the argument is that it

  1. Relies on a generalization about

    Bad Description

    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% picked this

  2. Fails to give specific examples

    Bad Description

    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% picked this

  3. Uses the term “apprenticeship” to

    Bad Description

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    Equates political know-how with understanding

    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% picked this

  5. Assumes that when inexperienced politicians

    Bad Assumption

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free