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

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.