Comments

• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  December 2020 edited June 2021 8491 karma

  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 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  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 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  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 Alum Member Sage ⭐

  December 2020 8491 karma

  @"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 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  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 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  judge whether a policy is fair to all (judge on a subject) -----> seasoned politicians with political know-how (have knowledge on subject)
• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  December 2020 edited June 2021 8491 karma

  @"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 Core Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 1050 karma

  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 Alum Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 2249 karma

  @"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?
• 1 Like

  Burden.of.Floof Core Member

  June 2021 1050 karma

  @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 Alum Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 2249 karma

  @"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 Core Member

  June 2021 1050 karma

  Thanks @Ashley25!
• moonstars5678 Member

  October 2022 166 karma

  @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