Subscription pricing
Hello, guys. Need help on this one please. I’ve gotten myself all turned around on this one. E was a contender but I went with D because I saw the question as an argument by analogy. According to the webinar we should introduce an area of key dissimilarity between the two phenomena so I went with D. Am I wrong that D is even introducing a key dissimilarity? E seemed super obvious but I still chose D because of the aforementioned. Also, the explanations I’ve read say that the author is saying there was trade between Europe and East Asia. I didn’t see it that way. I thought the author was just saying just because there’s no written record that doesn’t prove there was no trade. I guess I can’t really understand this one as well because the explanations all say the AC strengthen the author’s conclusion that there was trade between the two.
0
3 comments
@tanes25413 said:
@tanes25413 ok thx! This makes sense. I’ll be extra careful going fwd when dealing with analogies.
You're welcome! Glad I could be of help!
@tanes25413 ok thx! This makes sense. I’ll be extra careful going fwd when dealing with analogies.
You might be narrowing in on the wrong part of the stimulus. The argument does not hinge on the analogy. Rather, the crux of the argument lies in the second part of the second sentence where the author makes an explicit attempt at underlining the underlying logic: "but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not (exist)".
In lawgic that's: if there's absence, then we cannot prove non-existence.
Absence --> /prove
In order to weaken the argument, we need to find something that's loosely along the lines of: if there's absence, then that might actually mean non-existence.
(E) encapsulates this best.
(D), by contrast, somehwat reinforces the first part of the second sentence: "A verifiable sighting of the yeti would prove that the creature does exist". It barely even addresses the core part of the argument, really.
Finally, to be clear, yes, the author does seem to be siding with the side that says there was trade between Europe and East Asia. However, his argument serves as a counterpoint to the opposing side's argument, so that's why there isn't an explicit indication of his stance. But it can be reasonably presumed that the author sides with the team that proposes the notion that trade between Europe and East Asia existed.