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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—SN. The correct answer choice is (E)

The Stimulus contains an analogy and faulty conditional reasoning. Was there trade between Europe and East Asia during the Middle Ages? There are no written records that such trade existed, but the author opines that this is insufficient to conclude that no such trade occurred. His basis for concluding this is an analogy that the yeti does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings; a sighting of the yeti would confirm that it does exist but the lack of such a sighting cannot prove that it does not exist.

Scientifically confirmed sightings yeti exists, but it is not true that scientifically confirmed sightings yeti exists.

The conclusion is not directly stated in the Stimulus, but the author does conclude that the absence of any written records discussing trade between Europe and East Asia during the Middle Ages is not evidence that no such trade existed.

This argument is weak however, and this weakness should be exploited in attacking the Stimulus and the Question Stem. The Question Stem indicates that this is a Weaken question type. Aggressively pre-forming an answer goes after the obvious weakness in the conclusion: something as significant as trade with a far off place would certainly be noted somewhere in something. 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.

Answer Choice (A): This answer deals with archaeological records and that these records support the conclusion that there was trade between Europe and East Asia in the Middle Ages. This answer choice would strengthen the conclusion that such trade occurred, and therefore, Answer Choice (A) should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (B): This answer states that while some written records from East Asia that survived and also mentioned trade, virtually no European documents from that period mention trade at all. The conclusion is that there was trade between East Asia and Europe. This answer choice, assumed to be true, does not necessarily weaken the conclusion although it could. It could also strengthen the conclusion. Answer Choice (B) should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (C): This is a so what answer. So what if the trade was relatively low volume that involved high-priced items like silk and precious metals? It does not weaken the conclusion and should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (D) : This answer addresses the author’s analogy about the yeti, so I am skeptical. That this is the only Answer Choice that discusses the yeti instead Middle Age trade between Europe and East Asia makes me even more skeptical. If the indirect evidence of the yeti’s existence is accepted, then it would strengthen the conclusion that there was trade in the Middle Ages between Europe and East Asia. Thus, this answer choice should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. It closely follows our pre-formed answer. Something that is as significant as trade between Europe and East Asia should have made it into a written record somewhere. Because it is likely that it would have done so (remember, the information in the Answer Choice is assumed to be true, and this information is contained in the Answer Choice), it weakens the conclusion that such trade existed absent any written confirmation.

[JennuineInc]

Can someone please tell me if the questions in the PowerScore Question Type training book are made up or does the LSAT have multiple versions of questions with different Question Stems? I keep getting different versions of very similar questions.

For example, this problem appears as a Main Point Question in my book.

(PowerScore Question Type Training LR 2016 - p60 Main Point Question #10)
(https://www.powerscore.com/questiontype ... 0Types.pdf)

This Question Stem asks: "Which one of the following best expresses the point of the argument?" and the correct answer is C.
To sum up C: "That the trade between the two countries didn't exist simply by the absence of evidence of its existence."

How can I get feedback on questions if they're totally different in this question type training book then the ones in the forum?
Are these made up??

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi JennuineInc,

Thanks for your question! The Question Type Training volumes contain only licensed LSAT questions, as indicated in the file you linked to in your post. However, earlier LSATs frequently contained LR stimuli followed by two different question stems (aka "double trouble") questions, which have since disappeared from the test (see http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/323 ... ng-stimuli for more information). When we put those questions into something like the Training Type books, we show the stimulus twice - once for each question type. That's why you will very occasionally encounter a "repeat" stimulus.

There is some evidence that double-questions are having a comeback, according to anecdotal reports about the question composition in recent experimental sections.

Hope this helps! Let me know.

Thanks,

[JennuineInc]

Oh that makes so much more sense!! Thank you!

[Jon Denning]

Post from another user:

In the lesson, the last sentence of the stimulus is explained as a Mistaken Negation.
Sighting → Prove Existence
No Sighting → Prove Nonexistence


The negated conditional reasoning is rejected by the author, so would this imply that the absence of sighting could prove the its existence (double negative) or that nothing could be proved at all?

And I would just like to ask how this relates to the answer (E). Is it saying that sometimes, the absence of sighting could prove that it does not exist? (If I am interpreting this wrong, how would the conditional reasoning be represented, abstractly, by the answer?)

Sighting → Prove Existence
No Sighting → Not Prove Nonexistence (Author)
No Sighting → Prove Nonexistence (Weaken)

[Jon Denning]

First, take a look at the official explanation we have posted for this question in our Forum already (October 1992, LR2, #13): lsat/viewtopic.php?f=693&t=9533&p=24637

If things are still unclear after reading that breakdown please post a follow up here and I'll be happy to explore this problem further

Thanks!

[LSAT2018]

Yes, I read through the explanation on the question, but I was just wondering the conditional statement I diagrammed matched up with your explanations on the video (the part when you talked about how the author is denying the Mistaken Negation). I just needed to fully diagram everything so I wouldn't miss what was implied in the last statement of the stimulus.

Thanks in advance!

[Jon Denning]

The negated conditional reasoning is rejected by the author, so would this imply that the absence of sighting could prove the its existence (double negative) or that nothing could be proved at all?

It's that nothing can be proven one way or the other from the absence of evidence (the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea). Diagrammatically they look like Mistaken Negations of each other, but really this is just a classic evidence error: just because you don't have evidence for something doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't there.

To Weaken that—not disprove it! just weaken—you can show that the absence of evidence is in fact a better indicator of legitimate absence than might be suspected, which is what (E) does: if trade had existed it is very likely we WOULD have evidence of it (written records). This makes the absence of evidence more suspicious, and thus weakens the author's argument.

[T.B.Justin]

I have been thinking about this problem for nearly a week and I have seen it before earlier in my studies as well.

The flaw (lack of evidence for/against a position doesn't prove that position is false/true) is apparent to me, as well as the mistaken conditionality, however I am having difficulty with determining the correct way to attack this question.

I feel that I am missing a piece of the puzzle, per se, in my thought process, when going from stimulus to question stem to pre-phrase to answer choices.

To Weaken that—not disprove it! just weaken—you can show that the absence of evidence is in fact a better indicator of legitimate absence than might be suspected, which is what (E) does: if trade had existed it is very likely we WOULD have evidence of it (written records). This makes the absence of evidence more suspicious, and thus weakens the author's argument.

T WR

Is that correct because if so that is the contrapositive of the conditionality the author rejects (not scientifically confirmed sighting not exist).

I thought the correct conditionality was WR T

[Charlie Melman]

Hey Justin,

On your first question: You generally want to feel like you have a solid grasp of the stimulus's logical structure before you tackle the answer choices. I also like to take a half-second after reading the question stem to absorb what it is the test wants me to do; here, I'd say to myself, "OK, the argument is that absence of proof is not proof of absence—and we're trying to counter this argument." Nebulous as it might sound, this process gets me in the right headspace to answer the question.

Your second question: The author makes two contentions: (1) WR T, and (2) If (Not) WR, it's not necessarily true that (Not) T. Answer choice (E) essentially says, "hold on, there are certain cases in which (Not) WR would pretty persuasively mean (Not) T." All this is to say that I don't think the logical mechanics are as neatly diagrammable as they are in your post.

Hope this helps.