Q22 - Historian: There is no direct

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you please explain why D is correct rather than B?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to help.

The critic's argument is horrible. The critic tries to argue by means of analogy comparing the nations of Poran and Nayal to today. The critic says that there are statutes on the books regulating activities that no longer occur. Okay, sure that might be true. But the historian provided evidence that the statutes weren't just on the books, so to speak, but were enacted during the period in question.

So the critic failed to distinguish between a statute's existence on the books, and it's enactment during the time period in question - best expressed in answer choice (D).

(A) addresses the wrong conclusion. If the critic had claimed that there was definitely trade between the nations of Poran and Nayal then this would have a been a better answer choice. The fact that the information is consistent with the idea that there was no trade doesn't express a weakness in the critic's argument.
(B) is irrelevant. The argument does not need to establish that the laws were relevant to the timber trade. The critic argues by analogy, not by direct evidence.
(C) is not true. The critic does not fail to recognize the fact that the historian uses indirect evidence.
(E) does not reflect a flaw in the critic's argument. This answer choice is just meant to be tempting and make you pause long enough to think about what that assumption might be. But there is no problem with accepting the assumption of the historian that if a nation has laws on the books regulating an activity, that the activity probably occurred in reality.

I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions on this one, please feel free to ask!

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm a little confused on (B) and (D). I picked (B). My thought process was that these laws actually aren't relevant. They aren't relevant because they are talking about what is happening now versus what was happening then. Maybe the purpose of laws now is very different from the purpose then.

Is (B) wrong because we don't need to know if they are relevant to the timber trade per se? Instead, we would really need to know if the purpose of these laws are relevant in general. I just cannot get over the temporal aspects of the argument.

[maryadkins]

Good! You're right.

Basically, what's happening now isn't applicable to what's happening then.

But (B) doesn't say that's the flaw. (B) says that the flaw in invoking present law is that there isn't indication that those present laws have to do with timber. We don't need them to do with timber. That's not the point, not what the critic is trying to suggest or what would make his argument better. Make sense?

[WaltGrace1983]

Yes. Thanks Mary!

[LolaC289]

I found the critic's argument super weird...isn't his reasoning kind of self-contradictory? He claims the historian's reasoning to be flawed, which concludes that there was a timber trade, but he also says "during...Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran" himself. So, the critic actually agrees with the historian's conclusion? Only questioning the support the historian has used to arrive at that conclusion?

So strange that it is often easier for me to point out a flaw in an argument that is pretty strongly supported, than to point out a flaw in a super weak supported argument.