#22 - Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

Answer choice (A): This is precisely what the critic attempts to do: show that the historian’s reasoning is flawed since it is quite possible that there was not any timber trade between Poran and Nayal, despite the historian’s evidence. Thus this answer choice does not describe a flaw of the critic’s response.

Answer choice (B): The current laws cited are not meant to be directly relevant to the timber trade. They constitute a parallel case, which shows that the historian’s evidence does not sufficiently justify his conclusion. The critic is trying to show that just because a law exists does not mean that activities that the laws regulate also exist. He argues that many existing laws regulate activities that are no longer engaged in, thus just because there was a timber trade law does not show that timber trade was conducted.

Answer choice (C): The critic recognizes that the historian’s conclusion was based on indirect evidence. He merely argues that the historian’s reasoning is not correct since it does not hold true in the present: many existing laws regulate activities that are no longer engaged in.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The historian reasons that the enactment of a law regarding timber imports from Poran during the third Nayalese dynasty suggests that timber trade was conducted between the two nations. The critic argues that since there exist many laws today regarding activities in which people no longer engage, the historian’s reasoning is thereby flawed. The problem with the critic’s response, however, is that it fails to differentiate between a law’s enactment and a law’s existence. It is true, as the critic argues, that just because a law exists does not mean that the activities that it regulates also exist. The historian, however, was arguing that timber trade law not only existed, but was also enacted, and this enactment suggests that timber trade was conducted – why else would they have enacted the timber trade law? For that reason, the critic’s argument fails to respond to the historian’s reasoning, because the historian was dealing with a law’s enactment, when the critic merely reasoned about a law’s existence.

Answer choice (E): The critic’s response does not accept any assumption about the purpose of laws, and no such purpose underlies the historian’s argument.

[reop6780]

First of all, I'm confused of the time period described in the statements of Critic.

On "today's statute books..no longer engage," were "many laws" ones that existed during its third dynasty? (or in the past?)

Also, does "people no longer engage" mean that people during its third dynasty did not engage in activities at that time in the past or today's modern people do not engage in such activities?

More importantly, is the answer D correct because answer D was necessary to attack or to prove the historian's statement as false?

That is, instead of finding specific flaw in the critic's statement itself, was I supposed to find the answer based upon his argument that "Your reasoning is flawed" ?

- Because it was historian who was not aware of the difference between a law's enactment and law's existence? And, Critic failed to explain Historian's flaw?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Hyun,

I'm going to try to answer all of your questions by explaining this question:

This question gets a little confusing because it asks us to find the flaw in the critic's argument and the critic's argument is that the historian's argument is flawed. Basically, we need to show that the critic has not actually pointed out a flaw in the historian's argument.

So let's pick apart both arguments:

The historian says that since a law on timber import tariffs from Poran was enacted during the 3rd Nayalese dynasty, this suggests that the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal traded timber at least once in that period. There is nothing obviously flawed about the historian's argument.

The critic tries to attack the historian's evidence by saying that the existence of a law regulating a specific activity does not mean that activity is actually occurring. He points out that there are many laws currently in existence that regulate activities which were once common, but no longer occur. The critic thinks he is attacking the historian's argument by pointing out that the existence of a law on timber import tariffs from Poran during the 3rd Nayalese dynasty does not guarantee that the two nations were trading timber during that time.

As answer choice (D) points out, however, the critic has failed to take into account the difference between the existence of a law and the enactment of it. Had the historian only said that the law existed during the 3rd dynasty, then the critic would have a valid point. But the historian specified that the law was enacted during the 3rd dynasty which means the critic's evidence is irrelevant. It may be true that old laws stick around past the point of relevance, but why would a nation go to the trouble of enacting a law on timber trade with Poran if they weren't trading timber with Poran?

Let us know if anything is still unclear!

Best,
Kelsey

[reop6780]

Oh yes, your explanation definitely helped me!

[lathlee]

hi. what kind of error is this according to LR bible flaw of reasoning? this bothers me cuz i can't recognize it.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lathlee,

This is an interesting question to me, as I see it as a question that I would almost have to put to the critic in order to understand his frame of mind when he made the flawed criticism. When I look at just his statement, I question whether or not he really even understands the historian's use of the word "enactment." As per the explanation above, it really does boil down to "enactment" vs "existence." On this basis, I would characterize it as a Uncertain Use of Term or Concept. And I can only assume that the critic didn't really know what the term meant when it was used by the historian.

On the other hand, I can't figure out from the stimulus if perhaps the Critic does really understand what enactment is and he is then trying to convince us in bad faith by making a bit of a time shift error combined with what results in an Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization. Is the Critic thinking he can trick us into thinking that isolated instances that happen today is a guarantee of the past and then trying convince us to conclude that it's always been the case? I would want to know more about his thinking when he made the flaw. I would want to ask questions to understand how he messed up so badly.

In either case, (D) correctly identifies the critic "takes no account" for enactment vs existence. But generally, I think it's safer to probably conclude that this flaw boils down to a misunderstanding by the Critic about what the term "enactment" specifically means and that enactment is not accounted for in his argument. Therefore, this flaw is probably an Uncertain Use of Term. I will caution you though, it's not always going to be crystal clear what type it is because it may be more than just one kind of flaw. Regardless, you always have to recognize it as a flaw and how it is a flaw for the purpose of determining a correct answer.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[lathlee]

Hi.thank you so much for the answer. Therefore, would it be Fair to consider this Q is Uncertain Term or concept PRINCIPLE (spirit in the last LR bible chapter Principle) flaw or Uncertain Term or Concept flaw Extension .. would that be the fair definition?

[Jennifer Janowsky]

I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking, but this question definitely has an element of Uncertain Term/Concept. Let me know if you are still confused.

[lathlee]

I am still confused haha . I do not know understand how uncertain term flaw is active in this Q stimulus

[James Finch]

Hi Lathlee,

It's less of an Uncertain Term and more of a changing of the terms. The historian is using evidence of the enactment of a tariff during a certain period to prove that trade in the affected good occurred during that time period. The critic's rebuttal is flawed because it doesn't attempt to rebut the enactment, but rather the continuing existence of an implicitly archaic law, which also implies that the tariff was enacted before the period the historian is discussing. So the critic is trying to rebut the historian's argument by making a totally unrelated one about the continued existence of archaic laws, instead of actually addressing the historian's argument.

Hope this clears things up!