Q21 - Historian: There is no direct

[peg_city]

Why is C wrong?

Historian: "was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest"

Critic: "Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran, but....."

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

The Historian's argument gives the premise that there was a law setting tariffs on Poran timber imports in the 3rd Nayalese dynasty , and concludes that this suggests that timber trade between the nations was conducted during that period.

The critic objects to this. S/he calls out the reasoning as being flawed. While acknowledging that it certainly could be the case that the nations traded timber, s/he counters that we have outdated laws on our books.

We can infer that she is implying the trade between Poran and Nayal could have taken place before the 3rd dynasty, not during it, as the Historian suggests.

So, the critic's response does acknowledge that the timber trade was a possibility. But (C) is incorrect because the response does not distinguish between possible and certain. In fact, neither speaker says anything about what has been established as a certainty! For (C) to be correct, the historian would need to conclude something was certain and the critic would need to say something like, "Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is certain."

Does that make sense?

(A) is correct because the critic does indeed imply, by resorting to evidence about the present, that the present and past are analogous.

(B) is incorrect because there's no general principle, and even if we say that the critic's evidence is such a principle, the historian doesn't violate it.

(D) is out because he gives no explicit criteria.

(E) is incorrect because the critic doesn't address the different roles the law plays.

Takeaway: In a 2-speaker Procedure question, always consider whether the second speaker attacks the first speaker's premise, conclusion, or logic. And be on the look out for commonly-tested methods of argument such as arguing by example, arguing by analogy, application or principle, reduction to the absurd, and reaching a conclusion by ruling out alternatives.


#officialexplanation

[acechaowang]

C is tricky because the presence of certainly in critics's argument. I think C is wrong because critic only established that the trade is possibile. But there is nothing about what has been established to be certainly in his argument and of course there is no distinguish.

[stm_512]

I can see why A is correct, but I'm still having trouble with how C is wrong.

Isn't the critic saying, by analogy, that people might not have engaged in trade in the ancient nations, thereby suggesting that the historian claim is far from certainty?

Or am I assuming too much of what the critic is implying?

[onguyen228]

Historian: law enacted ----> suggest timber trade

Critic:
Present: Current law established ----> not used
Past: Thus, past law enacted ----> may not be used either

There is an obvious time shift error here. Just because an antiquated law is not longer useful by today's society, doesn't mean when the law was first created the people didn't need to use it. Why do laws become enacted? Certainly, not because it wasn't need it, but because it was needed at the time.

Anyways,

(A) Correct

(B) Nope

(C) The critic's argument depends on this present to past analogy; if the present situation is certain than a similar past situation which is possible can also be certain, and a distinction between what is certain and what is possible would hurt his argument.

In other words he is counting on: Possible ----> Certain
Not counting on (distinction): Possible ----> Not Certain

(D) Nope

(E) Nope