PT 7_Section 4_Q 22
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:32 pm
Hello!
I am difficulty understanding why D is the correct answer.
Bellow is my understanding of the argument:
Historian's conclusion: timber trade is suggested to exist in 3rd dynasty
P1: No direct evidence of timber trade;
P2: Indirectly, a trading law setting tariffs on timber imports was enacted at 3rd dynasty;
P3: This fact suggested timber trade existed at that time.
Critics: historian’s reasoning is flawed.
P1: Nowadays, some law clauses existed in statute(enacted) are once used but now not used
P2: For the same reason, a tariff regulating trading law does suggest that timber trade happened at 3rd dynasty (or not at all), but later than that? we don't know?
I see critic's argument is indeed flawed, in that it does not actually weaken historian's argument. He even accepts historian's conclusion. But I don't really see how critic did not differentiate 'the enactment of a law' and 'serving as a legal code at a time', on the contrary, I think the premise he cited meant to point out difference of the two.
thanks in advance!
I am difficulty understanding why D is the correct answer.
Bellow is my understanding of the argument:
Historian's conclusion: timber trade is suggested to exist in 3rd dynasty
P1: No direct evidence of timber trade;
P2: Indirectly, a trading law setting tariffs on timber imports was enacted at 3rd dynasty;
P3: This fact suggested timber trade existed at that time.
Critics: historian’s reasoning is flawed.
P1: Nowadays, some law clauses existed in statute(enacted) are once used but now not used
P2: For the same reason, a tariff regulating trading law does suggest that timber trade happened at 3rd dynasty (or not at all), but later than that? we don't know?
I see critic's argument is indeed flawed, in that it does not actually weaken historian's argument. He even accepts historian's conclusion. But I don't really see how critic did not differentiate 'the enactment of a law' and 'serving as a legal code at a time', on the contrary, I think the premise he cited meant to point out difference of the two.
thanks in advance!