Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the ea

What's very hard about this argument is the nature of the conclusion. We are asked, which "best counters the argument?", but the question is, what is the argument? The main conclusion is not about whether trade actually existed between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the conclusion is about whether an argument is a sound argument.

The author is presumably responding to historians who argued --- "no written record ==> this trade didn't exist."
The author's conclusion is that this, the historian's argument, is a bad argument.
The author supports his conclusion by analogy --- by the analogy with an argument about the purported existence of the Yeti. Clearly, in the Yeti's cases, a lack of sightings is not conclusive, but one clear photo of a Yeti would be conclusive proof.
We are asked to counter, not the argument by historians, but the author's argument by analogy. We are looking for an answer that makes clear that, unlike the evidence in the Yeti case, the evidence here, the lack of written records, is strong evidence for the the non-existence of this trade.

(A) focuses on the wrong argument ---it's focusing on whether this trade actually existed, by-passing the argument by analogy.
(B) irrelevant
(C) irrelevant
(D) this just changes the nature of what counts as evidence in the analogous argument, but it doesn't demonstrate fundamentally why the Yeti-to-trade analogy argument is flawed.
(E) This brings up a major shortcoming of the analogy. In the case of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages, there are written records where this trade would have been very likely to have been mentioned if it existed, and it's not mentioned. In that context, the "no mention" is actually very strong evidence against the existence of such trade. This is a very different scenario than if we just had no written records of any sort ---- if all written records had been lost, then we could reasonably argue, "maybe the trade existed, was written about, and those written records were lost." But, if we have verifiable records that would have been likely to mention the trade, and these don't mention it, then that's a circumstance in which the lack of mention is damning evidence against the existence of this trade.
Furthermore, this is precisely where the analogy breaks down. There are very specific texts of which we can say --- if the trade had existed, it would have been mentioned here. There's no analogous spot for Yeti-sighting. Where does the Yeti live? In the Himalayas, a huge and vastly inaccessible region. There's no "prime Yeti spot", of which we could say --- if a Yeti existed, you would be likely to see it right here in this specific location.
This is the one answer that shatters the argument by analogy, which is the core of the author's argument.

Does this make sense?

Mike