LAST-4-1-11

11. No one who lacks knowledge of a subject is competent to pass judgment on that subject. Since political know-how is a matter, not of adhering to technical rules, but of insight and style learned trough apprenticeship and experience, only seasoned politicians are competent to judge whether a particular political policy is fair to all. A major weakness of the argument is that it

(A) relies on a generalization about the characteristic that makes someone competent to pass judgment

(B) fails to give specific examples to illustrate how political know-how can be acquired

(C) uses the term "apprenticeship" to describe what is seldom a formalized relationship

(D) equates political know-how with understanding the social implications of political policies

(E) assumes that when inexperienced politicians set policy they are guided by the advice of more experienced politicians

看不明白

对一个SUBJECT 缺乏知识的人不具备对这个SUBJECT做判断的能力. 由于实际的政治知识(POLITICAL KNOW-HOW)不是死抠TECHNICAL RULES, 而是通过实际锻炼得来的，所以，只有经验丰富的政治家才具备判断一个政策是否对大众公平的能力

my answer is D.

There is an analogy in support of the argument, which is : political know-how is something like knowledge of a subject. This analogy is the weakness of the reasoning. political know-how is different from knowledge which enable people to understand a polciy.

As to A, there is no such a genralization. The first sentence is not such a generalization (lack knowlege----not competent to judge). Rather it is a generalization of characteritic that make someone not competent to pass judgement.

I don't know if someone has a better understanding of this question.