LSAT-6-3-13

cicilla

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?

(A) Most of the evidence for the existence of trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages is archaeological and therefore does not rely on written records.

(B) Although written records of trade in East Asia in the early Middle Ages survived, there are almost no Europe documents from that period that mention trade at all.

(C) Any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.

(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.

题目什么逻辑啊？E是答案，为什么呢？谢谢！

chelseayang

The logic of the stimulus is: if there is the written record/verifiable sighting for the existence of sth, it would prove that the thing does exist;

however, the absense of such evidence does not prove that the thing does not exist

即, 缺乏 某物存在的证据 不能证明 某物就是不存在

E说存在这样的WRITTEN RECORDS, 但如果所说的TRADE真存在，就应该写在这些RECORD里的. 意思是，没有就说明不存在，要存在就写了

xjlv128

脑筋要转几道弯阿……

jieyulike

E的意思是说原文的类比如果成立，那么E就应该反过来说。
攻击的是原文的类比。