Can someone help me out here. This question and the way it's worded is giving me a great deal of difficulty.
From what I can gather the argument has two premises – a principle and a fact:
P1 - if competent to pass judgement on a subject → don't lack knowledge of the subject
P2 - Political "know-how" is a type of knowledge learned through apprenticeship and experience.
C - Therefore, if competent to judge whether a particular policy is fair to all → seasoned politician
In my estimation, this argument needs two things: First, it has to show that a "seasoned politician" doesn't lack knowledge of a subject. It does this by making the assumption that "if you have political know-how → you're a seasoned politician;" Second, it must then assume that "political know-how" and "[not lacking] knowledge of a subject" are the same thing. Reason being: Just because you have a type of knowledge, i.e. political know-how, doesn't mean you don't lack knowledge of politics. I feel like AC D then would best encapsulate this flaw.
Does this reasoning check out?
Also, if this question made sense to you intuitively would you mind explaining your thought process when reading the stimulus and identifying the flaw?
Many thanks.
We can't post links, but if you go on their LSAT default page you can get access to the Oct/Nov crystal ball.