[讨论]LSAT-4-4-22

waterpoo

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 conducted.

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.

22.   The critic’s response to the historian is flawed because it

(A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty

(B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade

(C) fails to recognize that the historian’s conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence

(D) takes no account of the difference between a law’s enactment at a particular time and a law’s existence as part of a legal code at a particular time

(E) accepts without question that assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian’s argument

答案是D，但我觉得D好像没说到点子上，或者是我对D的理解有误。我觉得Critic的问题应该是，虽然法律中有一部分条款已经不具有现实意义，但不影响它曾经发生过效力。因此，Critic的类比不能weaken 历史学家的推论。我的理解对么？

我的逻辑实在是一团糟，请大家指点一下我吧。

mindfree

The flaw is that the reasoning of critics is not paralell to the reasoning of the historian. Historian mentioned that the law was "enacted" during the period. The critics argued that law contains outdated clause. Therefore, if the historian's point was that there was timber trade because a law during that period contained tariff clause, critics reasoning would have been effective.