Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the...
kensJuly 7, 2020
Methods of Reasoning Questions Q26
I don't quite understand the critic's argument. What is the purpose of the analogy: certainly on today's statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage? Is he/she trying disprove that timber trade took place? Or is he/she saying that just because such law was enacted doesn't imply that they engaged in trade? Thanks in advance!
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So let’s go over the historian’s argument real quick first. The historian’s saying although there’s no direct evidence for trading timber between these nations, there’s this law that sets tariffs on timber imports enacted in the third Nayalese dynasty. Which suggests that in those times, there was timber trade, since they went through the trouble of making a law about it.
The critic then rebuts by saying that the reasoning’s flawed. Why? Sure, the critic concedes that maybe Nayal imported timber from Poran during the third dynasty, which is when the law was enacted. But the critic’s implying that that’s all we can say; we can’t say anything about the 4th/5th dynasties etc. based on that one law. And the reasoning for this? Well, today, we have laws that regulate activities that used to be common but aren’t anymore. So similarly, the critic’s pointing at the possibility that the law regulates an activity (trading timber) that used to be common (during the third dynasty maybe) but isn’t anymore (for the rest of the period those two countries existed). So yes, it’s saying that just because a law was enacted at some point in the past about an activity, doesn’t mean we still do that activity nowadays.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
