PT 7_Section 4_Q 22

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
existence1943

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:55 am

PT 7_Section 4_Q 22

Postby existence1943 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:32 pm

Hello!

I am difficulty understanding why D is the correct answer.

Bellow is my understanding of the argument:

Historian's conclusion: timber trade is suggested to exist in 3rd dynasty
P1: No direct evidence of timber trade;
P2: Indirectly, a trading law setting tariffs on timber imports was enacted at 3rd dynasty;
P3: This fact suggested timber trade existed at that time.

Critics: historian’s reasoning is flawed.
P1: Nowadays, some law clauses existed in statute(enacted) are once used but now not used
P2: For the same reason, a tariff regulating trading law does suggest that timber trade happened at 3rd dynasty (or not at all), but later than that? we don't know?

I see critic's argument is indeed flawed, in that it does not actually weaken historian's argument. He even accepts historian's conclusion. But I don't really see how critic did not differentiate 'the enactment of a law' and 'serving as a legal code at a time', on the contrary, I think the premise he cited meant to point out difference of the two.

thanks in advance!

User avatar
Deardevil

Bronze
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:00 pm

Re: PT 7_Section 4_Q 22

Postby Deardevil » Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:59 am

Just because toys are made to be sold (exist)
does not mean they will definitely be bought and played with (enact).
So the historian says the enactment might trigger an exchange in the past.
The critic, however, incorrectly talks about something else entirely as if it were the same.

So he fails to equate the two, and that is why (D) is correct.
In any case, the answer is certainly not any of the other choices.

existence1943

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:55 am

Re: PT 7_Section 4_Q 22

Postby existence1943 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:01 pm

Deardevil wrote:Just because toys are made to be sold (exist)
does not mean they will definitely be bought and played with (enact).
So the historian says the enactment might trigger an exchange in the past.
The critic, however, incorrectly talks about something else entirely as if it were the same.

So he fails to equate the two, and that is why (D) is correct.
In any case, the answer is certainly not any of the other choices.



Hi, thanks for the input!

I am still quite confused. I agree that the enactment of law does not necessarily mean it serves as legal code and regulates activities. Some of the laws may never be used.

The point I am confused about is, isn't critic accusing that the historian fails to differentiate 'enactment' and 'serving as legal code' and consequently weakens his argument? Answer D is reversed, saying that critic does not differentiate the two concepts.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests