The author attempts to imply that we cannot rule out traded due to the lack of written evidence alone, akin to a yeti sighting. Which of the following statements would weaken/ counter the argument?
Let's look at the answer choices:
(A) supports the argument rather than counters. The fact that most of the evidence is archeological supports the notion that it would be wrong to conclude that there was no trade solely because there is no WRITTEN evidence;
(B) is irrelevant. This statement adds nothing to the argument, it simply confirms the fact that there are no written records of the trade between two regions, the fact that the author already presumes in the stimulus;
(C) is irrelevant. This fact alone would require us to infer that low volume trade involving high price items would or would not involve written records, but we have insufficient facts to make this conclusion either way;
(D) is irrelevant because this analogy concerns the proof of yeti's existence whereas the author's argument concerns that lack of evidence is insufficient to prove the absence of trade;
(E) is the correct answer choice because it weakens the argument. The fact that there are written records that would have been likely to mention trade but fail to do so suggests that the absence of written evidence is in fact, enough to argue that there was no trade between the two regions.
Does this help? Let me know if you have any other questions.
ShirnelMay 10, 2020
Great explanation. I was between A and E. I'm surprised that A supports the argument. I actually thought it could be an alternate cause but now I see why it does. It implies we don't need written proof alike the argument.
