PT5.S1.Q11 - Political know-how

Ashley2018-1

Competent----> have knowledge on the subject
"Only seasoned politicians are competent to judge"
Competent-----> seasoned politicians

What is the next step?

canihazJD

This is a really good question. The error isn't in the conditional logic, but in the assumption.

If you can judge then you have knowledge
Political know how comes from apprenticeship and experience
So only seasoned politicians can judge whether a policy is fair

There are a few assumptions that you can pull from this but one is pretty big and should lead you to the right answer.

Ashley2018-1

so the jump is from politicians having political know-how to being able to judge whether a policy is fair for all? (having knowledge on subject)

Ashley2018-1

Premises:
Competent to pass judgment on a subject-----> have knowledge on a subject
+ politicians have political know-how

Conclusion: Competent to judge whether policy is fair to all-----> politicians have knowledge=political know-how

canihazJD

@"ashley.tien" said:
so the jump is from politicians having political know-how to being able to judge whether a policy is fair for all? (having knowledge on subject)

yes.

@"ashley.tien" said:
Premises:
Competent to pass judgment on a subject-----> have knowledge on a subject
+ politicians have political know-how

Conclusion: Competent to judge whether policy is fair to all-----> politicians have knowledge=political know-how

Not quite. I'd say the argument went more like this:

Premise: Competent to pass judgment on a subject→have knowledge on a subject
Premise: political know-how comes from experience
Conclusion: only seasoned politicians can judge whether a policy is fair to all

Ashley2018-1

Wait, aren't those equivalent though? "Only seasoned politicians can judge whether a policy is fair to all"
Judge whether a policy is fair to all----> seasoned politicians

Ashley2018-1

judge whether a policy is fair to all (judge on a subject) -----> seasoned politicians with political know-how (have knowledge on subject)

canihazJD

@"ashley.tien" said:
judge whether a policy is fair to all (judge on a subject) -----> seasoned politicians with political know-how (have knowledge on subject)

Yes, that's the conclusion. When you ask weren't they all equivalent, I think you're referring to the assumptions. One of those assumptions is the flaw called out by the correct AC.

Burden.of.Floof

Okay, this question really tripped me up. Timed I was down to A and D and I couldn't decide. I just want to put it out there and hopefully someone can tell me if I'm way off base or on the right track.

Translation:
- Competence to pass judgement on a subject must include knowledge of said subject
- For this reason, only seasoned politicians can decide if a policy is fair to all (Conclusion)
- This is because, political know-how involves experience.

I'm going to diagram this because I feel like it's the only way to see this. This is the diagram the authors are trying to make, but it's obviously problematic.

(Principle): competent to pass judgment on subject --> knowledge of subject
(Premise): political know-how (knowledge) ---> experience
(Conclusion): competent to judge policy fairness ---> experienced (seasoned)
politicians

So, they're equating knowledge of a subject and political know-how, which is fine in my opinion. But I put it on a separate line to leave them separate in case that's an issue.

But the assumption here is that competence to judge policy fairness --> political know-how. (Because that's the way you can chain up the statements to lead to experience) The problem is that, while competence to pass judgement on a subject means you have knowledge, it has to be the same subject. Who says competence in determining how policy effects people is the same thing as being competent in politics? Political know-how ≠ knowledge of policy consequences.

To make this valid, the chain instead should be:

competent to pass judgment on subject --> knowledge of subject
political know-how = knowledge of policy consequences --> experience

Conclusion: competence to pass judgment on fairness of policy ---> experience

Phew! That took me at least an hour haha.

Ashley2018-1

@"Burden.of.Floof" said:
Okay, this question really tripped me up. Timed I was down to A and D and I couldn't decide. I just want to put it out there and hopefully someone can tell me if I'm way off base or on the right track.

Translation:
- Competence to pass judgement on a subject must include knowledge of said subject
- For this reason, only seasoned politicians can decide if a policy is fair to all (Conclusion)
- This is because, political know-how involves experience.

I'm going to diagram this because I feel like it's the only way to see this. This is the diagram the authors are trying to make, but it's obviously problematic.

(Principle): competent to pass judgment on subject --> knowledge of subject
(Premise): political know-how (knowledge) ---> experience
(Conclusion): competent to judge policy fairness ---> experienced (seasoned)
politicians

So, they're equating knowledge of a subject and political know-how, which is fine in my opinion. But I put it on a separate line to leave them separate in case that's an issue.

But the assumption here is that competence to judge policy fairness --> political know-how. (Because that's the way you can chain up the statements to lead to experience) The problem is that, while competence to pass judgement on a subject means you have knowledge, it has to be the same subject. Who says how a policy effects people is the same thing as being competent in politics? Political know-how ≠ knowledge of policy consequences.

To make this valid, the chain instead should be:

competent to pass judgment on subject --> knowledge of subject
political know-how = knowledge of policy consequences --> experience

Conclusion: competence to pass judgment on fairness of policy ---> experience

Phew! That took me at least an hour haha.

lol.

this appears to be a necessary assumption but isn't this similar to a sufficient assumption since we only really have one premise?

Burden.of.Floof

@Ashley25 The idea of those two things being equal is probably both necessary and sufficient. If they’re not the same the argument is destroyed, and it’s mostly sufficient enough to draw the conclusion. I think you could argue that it doesn’t make sense in reality… like those two things aren’t the same, and that’s the whole point. BUT that being said, explicitly saying they’re the same certainly helps the argument as a whole.

Ashley2018-1

@"Burden.of.Floof" said:
@Ashley25 The idea of those two things being equal is probably both necessary and sufficient. If they’re not the same the argument is destroyed, and it’s mostly sufficient enough to draw the conclusion. I think you could argue that it doesn’t make sense in reality… like those two things aren’t the same, and that’s the whole point. BUT that being said, explicitly saying they’re the same certainly helps the argument as a whole.

you have the cutest profile name on this forum, especially in combination with that photo lol

if I were to capture the essentials of the question, it's:
Premise 1: competent---> knowledgeable
Premise 2: competent (politicians)----> (knowledgeable) political know-how

Conclusion:
competent (politicians)---> judge political implications of policy
flaw is a gap between having political know-how and knowing what implications a certain policy will have on the population. politician might be seasoned and experienced but may have little to no knowledge in how a specific policy would affect the population

Burden.of.Floof

Thanks @Ashley25!

moonstars5678

@canihazJD - I was having trouble understanding how we can equate whether a policy is "fair to all" with D's "understanding the social implications of political policies." When I thought "fair to all," I thought it could mean anything from social implications to economical or technological so thought this AC was too limiting?

help