- UID
- 15895
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2003-10-29
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
迷惑的LSAT-7-CR2-21
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
co9nducted.
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.
21. 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.
(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.
(E) It points out the dissimilar roles that law
plays in societies that are distinct from one
another.
答案选A。 我觉得A跟C都对。教授由实施的法令推出有贸易关系。反对意见说，During its
third dynasty, Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran。may 的语气不是表示，有这种可能性，但是由于现在的statute books 上面有 many laws regulating
activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage， 所以不能肯定吗？
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-11-24 15:41:00
楼主
