This is a Main Point question. Our correct answer will correctly describe the conclusion of the argument.
This argument is describing an Absence of Evidence flaw. The conclusion of the argument is that an absence of written records proving the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages does not prove that it did not exist.
Why? The argument explains that to do so would be similar to concluding that the Yeti does not exist because there have never been any scientifically confirmed sightings of it. The argument explains that though a verifiable sighting of the yeti would prove its existence, the absence of sightings will not prove that it does not exist.
So, likewise, though existence of written records would prove the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, the absence of written records will not be sufficient to prove its nonexistence.
Answer choice (C) states: "That trade between Europe and East Asia did not exist in the early Middle Ages cannot be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed."
This is exactly the point of the argument. The author uses the analogy to absence of sightings of the Yeti to make its point that the absence of written record (i.e. "a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed") is not sufficient to conclude that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages.
Answer choice (E) states: "There is no more evidence that trade between Europe and East Asia existed in the early Middle Ages than there is that the yeti exists."
The argument leads us to the point that we cannot conclude the nonexistence of trade between Europe and East Asia during the early Middle Ages just because there is an absence of written record. The stimulus does not discuss whether there is more evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia or for the existence of the Yeti.
We know that there are no written records of such trade, and that there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings of the Yeti. Whether or not one has more evidence, in general, has never been discussed and so it cannot be the point of the argument.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
stormbeelerAugust 29, 2015
I find myself getting questions like these right, but not until I debate between two answers for some time. Is A wrong because it is simply must be true, but not the bigger picture or main point of this question? Thanks
NazSeptember 3, 2015
We do not know whether answer choice (A) is true. We do not know whether there is any evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia, and we do not know whether - in the case that there is evidence, i.e. written records - this evidence is scientifically confirmed or not. The "scientifically confirmed" portion comes from Yeti sightings, not from evidence of the existence of trade.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
