CD历史遗留问题，逻辑大虾请进 (之三)

freegirl

斑竹都到哪去了， 看看嘛！

freegirl

谢谢vrylwj！ 真是个好姐们啊，这么不辞辛劳，刷刷回了我这么多贴！ 真是一语点破梦中人啊！谢谢！

其他两个都明白了，就是
---------------------------2----------------------------------------------

请教lsat-6-iii-13,17,23
arguing that there was no trade between europe and east asia in the early middle ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the yeti, an apelike creature supposedly existing in the himalayas, does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. a verifiable sighting of the yeti would prove that the creature does exist, but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.

13. which one of the following considerations, if true, best counters the argument?

(d) there have been no confirmed sightings of the yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the yeti's existence.

(e) there are surviving european and east asian written records from the early middle ages that do not mention trade between the two regions but would have been very likely to do so if this trade had existed.

这个D? 请mindfree 回答！ mindfree 好事做到底嘛！ 谢谢！

我还是不太明白．原文的意思是：我们不能否认东亚与欧洲在中世纪没有贸易往来，仅仅因为没有记录，就象我们不能否认ｙｅｔｉ的存在，仅仅因为没有人看到ｙｅｔｉ．　

我的逻辑让我理解ｄ的意思是：我们确实没有目击过ｙｅｔｉ，　但我们看到别的因素导致我们确信ｙｅｔｉ　的存在。这不就反对了原文吗，因为ｙｅｔｉ是因为别的因素导致我们不能否认ｙｅｔｉ的存在，而不是文中所说的没有目击导致我们不能否认，因此ｙｅｔｉ是不能与东亚与欧洲在中世纪没有贸易来类比的。