#13 - Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and

[william92]

So the flaw is mainly because of the author’s use of false analogy? (Yeti to trade)
Because it seems like the author points out one of the common flaws which is the lack of the evidence for something does not prove it’s false. I’m also not sure if the author is clearly stating that the trade did exist because his/her conclusion is simply that the lack of evidence does not prove the absence (basically stating Mistaken Negation?). Other than use of false analogy, it’s hard to see the author’s argument is flawed otherwise.
Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

I do see this one as being about a false analogy, william92. The author is pointing out someone else's flaw (a Lack of Evidence flaw) and is using an analogy to show why the lack of evidence is insufficient. The problem for this author is that the issue of written records of trade may be different than the yeti issue. Perhaps, unlike the case of the yeti, a lack of evidence would be compelling, even sufficient, to prove the conclusion when it comes to trade and written records? So to weaken the argument, we attack the analogy by showing that a lack of written records may actually be good evidence for a lack of trade. Sure, the author made a valid point about arguments made based on a lack of evidence generally, but perhaps this case is different? That difference, where the analogy may not hold, is what weakens the argument.

[wisnain]

Hi,

I’m confused by the very first post, an explanation given by the Powerscore administrator. She states, “The absence of any such notation may not be evidence that such trade did not occur, but it certainly would call into question a conclusion that such trade did occur.”

Interpreting the latter part of her statement, it seems she suggests that the stimulus concluded “the absence of notation is evidence that such trade did occur,” and that we need to weaken this conclusion. However, isn’t the stimulus actually asserting the former part of her statement? That is, the stimulus is claiming that “the absence of notation doesn’t mean the trade didn’t happen.” This doesn’t imply that the trade did occur.

Therefore, to weaken this argument, shouldn’t I look for an answer choice indicating that if there is no evidence, it implies the trade didn’t happen?

[wisnain]

Hi,

I'd like to clarify my question.

I understood the stimulus to be arguing that "No written record" does not necessarily mean "No trade." To weaken this argument, it would need to be shown that "No written record" does indeed mean "No trade."

(A), (B), and (E) stood out to me. I eliminated (A) because it mentioned "most" of the evidence, not all, which seemed to weaken its impact. I also discarded (B) because it used the term "almost," which implies less than 100%. However, (E) was tricky because it stated "very likely." Should I choose (E) because "very likely" is stronger than just "likely"?

[Dana D]

Hey Wisnain,

This is a weakening question, and if you have identified an answer choice that most weakens the stimulus, then yes, you should select it. The initial argument is that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the Middle Ages. The premise, or support, for that argument is the fact that there are no written records of such trade. The author goes on to use an analogy to show this is not enough support to deduce that no trade occurred. With the addition of answer choice (E), the initial argument is strengthened - relying on the premise that there was no written record makes more sense, because there are existing written records from Europe and East Asia in the Middle Ages and they do not mention trade, which they very likely would have done if trade had occurred. We don't need to absolutely say that these records would have mentioned trade, saying it is 'very likely' still strengthens the initial argument and therefore counters the stimulus' claim that the lack of written records is irrelevant.

Hope that helps!