Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the...

Gotode on June 21, 2022

Could you please explain this one- the wording was confusing!

Could you please explain this one- the wording was confusing!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on June 22, 2022

Hi Gotode,

The historian suggests that timber was traded between two nations on the grounds that a tariff law was enacted despite a lack of direct evidence for the trade.

The critic claims that the historian's reasoning is flawed. They do so on the grounds that many current laws regulate activities that no longer take place.

We are asked the method of reasoning that the critic employs. We know that the historian is making a comparison between the situation in question and modern laws, so this is an argument by analogy. The critic uses this analogy to suggest that such trade did not necessarily happen just because there was a law on the books.

(A) matches this understanding well. The critic does draw an analogy between the past and present. While the word "implies" is a bit odd, the critic technically never explicitly states this is an analogy, so A looks quite good.

(B) does not reflect the passage, the critic does not identify a general principle that the historian violates

(C) Is very far from the critic's argument. The critic is not making any sort of argument about certainty or possibility.

(D) Is also very far from the passage. The critic certainly does not establish explicit criteria that must be used.

(E) The critic does not reference the idea that law plays a different role in different societies.