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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

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.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The historian’s reasoning is that the enactment of laws about an activity implies that people were engaging in that activity. The critic argues that since it does not hold true in modern day – many existing laws are regarding activities in which people no longer engage – the argument is also likely flawed about the past. Thus the critic is implying an analogy between the present and the past, in that since the historian’s reasoning does not hold true about the present, it is therefore also flawed concerning the past.

Answer choice (B): The critic does not identify any general principle that the historian’s reasoning has violated.

Answer choice (C): The historian argues that the fact that a law was enacted suggests that timber trade was conducted. Thus there is a distinction between certainty – a law regarding timber imports was enacted – and possibility – timber trade might have been conducted. However, the critic’s response has not addressed this distinction.

Answer choice (D): The critic’s response does not establish any explicit criteria that must be used in evaluating indirect evidence.

Answer choice (E): The critic has not addressed the roles that law plays in distinct societies.

[mewee2]

Helloo,

So I put C instead of A, because A uses the word "analogy" and I immediately figured that since there is no symbolic picture being drawn that there was no analogy. They were so tricky with this word! So is analogy basically just any kind of comparison?

And for C I figured that that's what they are doing. The historian uses the word "suggest" and the critic also concedes the historian by saying "may," but then he points toward more "certain" evidence that undermines that conclusion of the historian.

Ahhh can you please explain to me what C really means/would look like?

Thank you

[BethRibet]

Hi Mewee2,

Thanks for the question. You may be overthinking this a bit. The analogy would be between present-day statutory law, and laws on the books during the 3rd dynasty.

As far as answer choice C, the neither the historian or the critic make any claims about certainty, so the answer choice can't be correct. The critic focuses on whether the evidence suggests what the historian claims it suggests.

Hope this helps!

Beth

[lathlee]

For this 11-92 Q 59 as well, even though I have no problem A) is the correct answer; this part of b) quite bothered me a lot as I was going over:

b) identifies a general principle that.... violates.

if we assume Critic is pointing out that general principle is as (law exists but not necessarily in effect ) and critic is pointing that historian is violating that point, then b) also is a right answer as A). but I went with a) cuz we don't know whether what would be constituted as a general principle in this occasion, therefore stick with what i definitely know as the "Supported reason." Anyways, How can one know in a case like this, whether what can be considered as a general principle or not?

[Adam Tyson]

A general principle can be thought of as a rule. If the general principle here is that a law can be on the books but not reflect current activity, a violation of that rule would be a claim that a rule being on the books PROVES that the activity regulated by that law must have been active at that time. The historian made no such claim, in that 1) he did not base his claim on a rule simply being on the books, but on being enacted during that time, and 2) he did not offer that as proof of anything, but only as a suggestion or as evidence.

Here's what a general principle being violated looks like:

Principle: People who live in second floor apartments shouldn't stomp around in heavy shoes when their downstairs neighbors are home.

Violation: Rudy, my upstairs neighbor on the second floor, is stomping around in heavy shoes right now while I am at home.

or

Principle: Whenever peace is desired, politicians should speak softly and politely to their potential enemies

Violation: The President, who claims to want peace, is yelling in a disrespectful way at a potential enemy

Beware these answer choices! You should only pick them if you can articulate what the principle is and show a clear violation of the principle. Not just a disagreement with it, but a violation. As principles tend to be conditional, that usually means you would be looking for a sufficient condition occurring and a necessary condition not occurring.

[nmgee]

I think what drew me away from (A) is that the Critic says "there remain many laws regulating activities...people no longer engage [in]".

The use of the word "remain" suggested to me that the Critic is saying "it's possible the trade between P and N occurred, but today there are many laws on the books that regulate an activity we don't do anymore...so Historian's reasoning is off". Thus I took that as saying what (C) says: it's "possible" that N and P traded, but "certainly" laws exist on the books today that apply to activities no longer engaged in. So how can it be said, as in the above explanations, that (C) is not addressing the distinction? (C) says "N may well have timber from P" (possibility) and discusses a feature of today's statute books (a certainty).

I don't fail to see the analogy mentioned in (A), but don't see how to rule out (C). Thanks in advance for your help!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, NMGee,

Answer choice (C) plays a bit of a shell game. While the argument does use the term "certainly" and we know with "certainty" that there are current laws that refer to past activity, the argument does not distinguish between this "certainty" and the "possibility" that "Nayal may have imported timber from Poran."

In other words, there is no distinction between the laws on the books today and the possibility of lumber trade in the past. This comparison is not part of the argument. Therefore, even though we know something for sure today and know something was a possibility in the past, these two ideas do not relate to one another.

I hope this helps!

[andriana.caban]

Hi Mewee2,

Thanks for the question. You may be overthinking this a bit. The analogy would be between present-day statutory law, and laws on the books during the 3rd dynasty.

As far as answer choice C, the neither the historian or the critic make any claims about certainty, so the answer choice can't be correct. The critic focuses on whether the evidence suggests what the historian claims it suggests.

Hope this helps!

Beth

Hi!

Can you please understand what distinguish means? I choose (C) because the author starts with Nayal may have and then continues to say certainly. If the critic had distinguished between both, what would that look like? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

When we talk about distinguishing one thing from another, andriana.caban, we are talking about laying out what makes them different, or at least saying that they ARE different. Distinguishing is simply telling two things apart from each other. The Critic here does no such thing, because he never shows us that one thing is certain while another is only a possibility. Put another way, he isn't telling us about what makes two things different. Rather, by making a comparison, he is telling us how two things are probably similar.

One thing about this argument that confuses students is that the Critic's argument is pretty much garbage. He makes a terrible analogy between statutes remaining on the books (meaning they have been around for a while, perhaps long after they were required because the activity they regulated is no longer being conducted) and statutes being enacted (put into first use). That's the key to selecting the correct answer to the next question, of course, as this is one of those old-school "double trouble" situations with two questions about one stimulus. The first question, about the Method of Reasoning, is a little jarring, frankly. To answer it we need to ignore the obvious flaw and just describe the strategy, such as it is. And what is that strategy? An analogy, a comparison between what we know is true today to what was happening back in the third Nayalese dynasty. Prephrase "he uses an analogy" or "he makes a comparison" and you're pretty much guaranteed a right answer here!

[andriana.caban]

Makes sense - thank you!