"No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject"
I see it this way: If you lack knowledge then you're not competent to pass judgment.
Kaplan has it reversed however, saying "Competence in passing judgment requires knowledge." I would translate this to Competence -------> Knowledge
Someone explain this please.
Put this premise in Conditional Reasoning Forum
-
deputamadre

- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:23 pm
- FreeGuy

- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:42 pm
Re: Put this premise in Conditional Reasoning
They didn't reverse it, they just took the contrapositive.deputamadre wrote:"No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject"
I see it this way: If you lack knowledge then you're not competent to pass judgment.
Kaplan has it reversed however, saying "Competence in passing judgment requires knowledge." I would translate this to Competence -------> Knowledge
Someone explain this please.
Lack knowledge -> Not competent to pass judgment
Contrapositive:
If you are competent to pass judgment, then you must have knowledge..
Both your translation of the original statement, and the Kaplan version, are valid.
- yoni45

- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am
Re: Put this premise in Conditional Reasoning
You're both right -- Kaplan doesn't have it reversed, it just has it presented in terms of the contrapositive... =)deputamadre wrote:"No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject"
I see it this way: If you lack knowledge then you're not competent to pass judgment.
Kaplan has it reversed however, saying "Competence in passing judgment requires knowledge." I would translate this to Competence -------> Knowledge
Someone explain this please.
Yours: If you lack knowledge then you're not competent to pass judgment.
Symbolized: ~Knowledge --> ~Competence
Kaplan: Competence in passing judgment requires knowledge.
Symbolized: Competence --> Knowledge
EDIT: What he said... ^_^
-
deputamadre

- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:23 pm
Re: Put this premise in Conditional Reasoning
Wow. Guess my mind was worn after 3.5 of hours of flaw questions. Thanks guys
- theZeigs

- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm
Re: Put this premise in Conditional Reasoning
See here too:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=110024
I had to struggle through this. Going to add to that particular post in the next few days with some further thoughts, etc.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=110024
I had to struggle through this. Going to add to that particular post in the next few days with some further thoughts, etc.