Self-study
Historian: There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the fact that Support a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest that Conclusion during that period a timber trade was conducted.
███████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The historian argues that, though there isn't any direct evidence for a timber trade between Poran and Nayal, the fact that a law about timber imports from Poran was enacted in the third Nayalese dynasty indicates that those two nations did conduct a timber trade at that time.
The critic rejects the historian's argument, appealing to the fact that in today's legal system, many laws still remain on the books regulating activities that used to be common but are no longer performed.
Analysis: Identify Flaws
Notice that the critic's response is an argument by analogy: since there are laws today that regulate activities that are no longer performed, by analogy (the critic argues), the Nayalese law might not be evidence that a timber trade was conducted in the period the historian identifies. But for an analogy to work, the situations actually have to be analogous — and these two situations are not.
The critic is talking about laws that have "remained" — i.e., that were enacted in the past, presumably when an activity was common, and are still on the books even though that activity is no longer performed. But the historian is talking specifically about the time period when the law was enacted, arguing that if the Nayalese bothered to make a new law regulating timber imports from Poran, it seems likely that in that time period the two nations had a timber trade. So the critic's analogy doesn't actually apply to the historian's argument.
Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles
22.
The critic’s response to the █████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██
a
produces evidence that ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████
b
cites current laws ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████
c
fails to recognize ████ ███ █████████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ████████
d
takes no account ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ █ ███████ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ███ █ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ████
e
accepts without question ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ███ █████████████ ████████