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

Question

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

A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.
B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade.
C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct 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.
E) accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument..

Source : PrepTest 7, February 1993 LSAT, Section 4, Question 22

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. It is flawed because it does not make a crucial distinction between the existence of statutes and their enactment.

(B) No. The critic is drawing a conclusion about laws in general, not about specific laws.

(C) No. The historian explicitly states that the evidence is indirect, not direct. So it would not be insightful for the critic to point this out.

(D) Yes.  The historian states that tariff laws were enacted during the third dynasty. The critic responds that sometimes laws remain on the books long after they cease being relevant, implying that the third dynasty Nayalese laws were out-of-date. However, since the laws were enacted during the third dynasty, presumably they were relevant then. Thus, the critic’s reasoning is flawed.

(E) No. The historian does assume that the purpose of tariff laws is to regulate timber trade. However, there is no need to question this assumption.

Skywalker18 · Answer

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

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Pre-thinking:

The analyses of the argument can be thus conducted.

The historian draws a conclusion about the existence of timber trade between two ancient countries basis the fact that a law regulating that trade was enacted by one of the countries. The critic considers this a flawed conclusion since laws once enacted to regulate an ongoing activity can remain on the statute books even after that activity has ceased.

The critic's objection itself appears flawed because it does not address the basis of the historian's conclusion. The historian's conclusion is not based on the fact that a law regulating timber trade  existed  on the books of Nayal, but that such a law was  enacted . This is relevant because while laws may remain on the books even after its target activity has ceased, it is less likely that a law targeting an activity would be  enacted  for an activity that does not take place at all.

Basis this understanding, let us examine the options:

A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.  Incorrect. If the critic's objection to the historian had indeed produced such evidence, it would make the critic's response valid and not flawed, since the critic's claim is opposed to that of the historian's claim that timber trade did indeed exist between the two nations.

B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade.  Incorrect. The critic does not cite any current laws but only states that currently there do exist laws regulating activities which are no longer carried out.

C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence.  Incorrect. A conclusion based on indirect evidence need not necessarily be incorrect. Failure to recognize this distinction does not necessarily make an objection flawed.

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. Consistent with our pre-thinking above.

E) accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument.  Incorrect. That the critic considers the historian's argument to be flawed means that he/she does not accept without question the purpose of the laws.

Hope this helps.

thelastskybender · Answer

When I read the argument I thought that one flaw might be that this Critic's argument is based on the assumption that this today's statute books scenerio is true for the past trades between the ancient nations also.

Keeping this in mind let's read the options:

A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.       
B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade.      
C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct 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.       
E) accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument.

unraveled · Answer

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

A) produces  evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade  between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty. - WRONG. Not consistent at all. This choice in itself is flawed.
B) cites current laws  without indicating  whether the laws cited are  relevant to the timber trade . - WRONG. 2nd best choice for me. Relevancy is there but again this is not the flaw critic makes.
C) fails to recognize that the historian's conclusion was  based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence . - WRONG. May have failed but based on what this choice claims is not at all there in Historian's argument. 
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. This is right since present laws does not justify past laws or activities. 
E)  accepts without question  the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument.. - WRONG. The word "flawed" suggests that critic did raise question.

Answer D.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards