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

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes. The clause “certainly on today’s statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage” is drawing an analogy between what is common today and what the critic believes was common in the past.

(B) No. There is no principle stated.

(C) No. Both the historian and the critic consider the tariff law as fact and see the existence of timber trade between Poral and Nayal as only a possibility. Therefore, the critic cannot respond to the historian by pointing out the difference between direct evidence giving certain information and indirect evidence providing only probabilities.

(D) No. There are no criteria mentioned.

(E) No. In fact, the critic is presuming just the opposite: that the role laws played in Nayalese society was similar to their role in contemporary society.
_________________

Ans: D

It establishes explicit criteria that must be used in evaluating indirect evidence

It's giving a criteria that must be considered.

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.

(A) It implies an analogy between the present and the past.
On today’s statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage. Similarly, there could be a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran which was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty but timber trade may not have existed during that period. (A) is correct.

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’s reasoning does which one of the following?

(A) It implies an analogy between the present and the past.

(B) It identifies a general principle that the historian’s reasoning violates. - WRONG. Both highlighted text asre not ascertainable.

(C) It distinguishes between what has been established as a certainty and what has been established as a possibility.

(D) It establishes explicit criteria that must be used in evaluating indirect evidence. - WRONG. No criteria discussed.

(E) It points out the dissimilar roles that law plays in societies that are distinct from one another. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Between A and C, C loses out because of the blue text in the passage. There is no such distinction. Critic accepts that fact and presents his/her counter argument.

Answer A.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________