Top Law Schools

"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.

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.

They didn't reverse it, they just took the contrapositive.

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.

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.

You're both right -- Kaplan doesn't have it reversed, it just has it presented in terms of the contrapositive... =)

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... ^_^

Wow. Guess my mind was worn after 3.5 of hours of flaw questions. Thanks guys

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.