Q13 - Arguing that there was no

[rsmorale]

Conclusion: Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia int he early Middle Ages because there are no written records of the trade is like arguing that the yeti does not exist because there have been no confirmed sightings

Premise: A verifiable sighting of the yeti would prove that the creature does exist; but the absence of sights cannot prove that it does not

This is an odd question. Can someone walk me through their explanation of it?

I narrowed it down to A and E, and ultimately chose A.

[maryadkins]

The core is:

can't conclude based on lack of evidence that something didn't exist

-->

can't conclude based on lack of written records that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia during Middle Ages

But what if we knew that if trade had existed, there would be written records? The argument would no longer work. (E) suggests this possibility--there are records from the period that would have mentioned trade if it had existed, but they don't.

(A) is the opposite of what we are looking for. If most of the evidence is archeological, then the person arguing is supported in stating that the lack of written records doesn't mean much.
(B) doesn't tell us much. We already know there aren't written documents that mention trade.
(C) does not at all address the argument that lack of written records does not mean trade didn't exist.
(D) is irrelevant. We aren't concerned with evidence that the yeti does exist; we're concerned with why lack of evidence could be read to conclude something doesn't exist.

[obobob]

For some reason, just understanding the stimulus is a bit confusing. Can someone please confirm if my understanding is correct?

STIMULUS:

Analogy/(Conclusion???): NO written record —> NO trade : NO verifiable sighting —> NO existence

P1: (But, yeti) exists

P2: Verifiable sighting —> can prove existence
NO verifiable sighting —> can NOT prove non-existence

———-

(Implicit) Conclusion: NO written record —sometimes — trade

QUESTION: Which one best weakens?

Answer (E): If the trade existed, then there would have been some kind of written record existing today. But, there isn’t any.

—> So I think this weakens, because (E) is basically trying to say that:
if the trade actually existed, (it is likely that) there would have been some kind of written record.
So, what the stimulus is arguing (that no written evidence cannot always count for disproving existence of such trade) is unlikely to be true.

THanks!

[smiller]

The first sentence of the stimulus is the conclusion, and it is an analogy. The last sentence contains the premise. The premise is stating that a lack of reliable evidence, by itself, does not definitively prove that something doesn't exist.

I'm not sure where you're seeing "P1: (But, yeti) exists." The argument never claims or assumes that the yeti does exist. The crux of the argument is that we don't know if the yeti exists or not. We don't have proof that it exists, nor do we have proof that it doesn't exist.

Your understanding of choice (E) seems correct. If true, choice (E) would introduce a new element to the argument that goes beyond a mere lack of evidence. Choice (E) indicates that some evidence should exist if the trade actually took place.

[WindyM522]

Hi,
Thank you all for the posts.
I am confused though why D) does cannot be considered as offering a (relevant) difference between the 2 cases involved in the analogy the argument relies on, which would weaken the analogy and thereby weaken the argument. Or is it that in this case, the argument does not require the analogy to begin with?
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.