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

[SammyWu11201]

I feel like I would better understand that C is an incorrect answer if I can see it concretely. What exactly would the critic say for Answer Choice C to be correct? What would an argument that distinguishes between possibility and certainty look like exactly?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Sammy,

You're asking the right question. I'm going to do what seems like ducking it at first, but I promise there's a reason for it. I don't think we can fashion an appropriate argument here that uses the same content the Critic uses and that also does what answer choice C says. That's because even if we came up with a "distinction" (a difference) between the "possibility" situation the Critic describes (the Nayal situation) and the "certainty" situation the Critic describes (today's statute books), that distinction/difference (whatever it is) wouldn't be at all responsive to the Historian's argument. So it wouldn't really make sense.

What answer choice C is describing would only really be a relevant style of responsive argument if someone (like the Historian) had suggested that things we know with certainty have the same characteristics (or the same level of certainty of occurring) as things that are merely possible. Then, a second speaker could come behind and point out the difference between what we know for sure and what is only possible. A very rudimentary example:

Weather Watcher: We know that all weather factors will come together to produce rain next week. Therefore, my Tuesday baseball game is going to be rained out.

Critic: I'll admit we can be sure it will rain next week. But Tuesday is only one of the days that comprise next week. So all we really know about Tuesday is that it's possible it will rain.

I hope this helps!

[ashpine17]

What exactly does it mean to distinguish between two things in the world of LSAT?

I got confused because I thought the critic was stating that the evidence used by historian to establish that it was a possibility there was timber trade between the two nations was not a certainty, meaning that the indirect evidence (the law) does NOT suggest there was trade. Is this wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

To distinguish between two things is to show or say that they are different, ashpine17. One problem with this answer is that the critic is not showing such a difference. Instead, the critic is saying that the historian's evidence isn't good enough to show even a possibility.. She's saying "there may have been such trade, but the evidence you offered for it is not good because similar evidence about modern society would be insufficient." It's an argument based on that comparison (a similarity in the critic's mind) rather than on a distinction.

[ashpine17]

Is the analogy in answer choice A referring to the critic talking bout modern day laws versus the ones in the two ancient nations?

I found E attractive because the critic was comparing today's society with ancient ones (societies that are distinct) and I thought the roles the law played was referring to the ones that were enacted in the ancient ones and the ones that are just on the books but not really enforced in today's society. Why is this incorrect?

[ashpine17]

i realized the choice says "that law" instead of "the law," so it's referring to the timber trade law isn't it?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine17,

Indeed, when answer choice (A) talks about the analogy, that's referring to the critic's comparison of current statute books to ancient Nayalese law.

Answer choice (E) is the opposite of what the critic is trying to do. The critic is trying to say that current statutes and Nayalese law are similar to each other in that they both may contain no-longer-relevant laws that haven't yet been repealed. There's no dissimilar role, but a similar role being pointed up.

To your second post, the significance of the word "that" is as explained here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gra ... at-clauses

There is no specific "law" the "that" in answer choice (E) is talking about.

Robert Carroll