Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between

Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the fact that a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest that during that period a timber trade was conducted.

Critic: Your reasoning is flawed. During its third dynasty, Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran, but certainly on today's statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage.

The critic's response to the historian is flawed because it
Type- flaw

A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.- incorrect, The fact that the information is consistent with the idea that there was no trade doesn't express a flaw in the critic's argument.
B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade.- irrelevant, the argument does not need to establish that the laws were relevant to the timber trade
C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence.- incorrect, the critic does not fail to recognize that the historian uses indirect evidence
D) takes no account of the difference between a law's enactment at a particular time and a law's existence as part of a legal code at a particular time.- Correct
The flaw is that critic’s response fails to differentiate between a law’s enactment and a law’s existence.
E) accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument.- incorrect, there is no issue with accepting the assumption of the historian that if a nation has laws on the books regulating an activity, that the activity probably occurred in reality.

Answer D