Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

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 the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian's argument

Short Answer

Expert verified
The critic's flaw is best described by Option D.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Question

The question asks us to identify the flaw in the critic's response to the historian. We need to evaluate each option to determine which one correctly identifies this flaw.
02

Analyze Each Option

Go through each of the provided options to see what flaw it points out in the argument and determine its relevance: - **Option A**: This option suggests that the flaw is the use of consistent evidence, yet lacking to address the possibility of a timber trade. This does not clearly show a flaw in reasoning based on evidence. - **Option B**: Suggests citing current laws without relevance to the historical context, which could be a weak link. - **Option C**: Indicates a failure to recognize the difference between indirect and direct evidence. This is more about misunderstanding the type of evidence than a flaw in reasoning. - **Option D**: Points out that there is no account of the distinction between a law's existence at a time and its presence in a legal code then. This seems to show a misunderstanding relevant to the situation. - **Option E**: Indicates accepting an assumption without question. That's pointing more towards a blind acceptance which could reveal a flaw.
03

Evaluate the Best Option

From the analysis, **Option D** addresses a fundamental misunderstanding by the critic regarding the difference between the enactment of a law and its existence in a legal code at a given time. This reflects a failure to appropriately understand the historical context.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Logical Flaws
In critical reasoning, identifying logical flaws in arguments is key to evaluating the strength and validity of the conclusions. A logical flaw can arise when an argument assumes a conclusion without proper support, or when the evidence presented does not directly lead to the stated conclusion. Here are some common logical flaws:
  • *Faulty Generalizations:* Drawing conclusions from inadequate evidence. For instance, assuming that one specific case applies to all other similar cases without further investigation.
  • *False Causality:* Confusing correlation with causation, such as believing that because two events occur together, one causes the other.
  • *Circular Reasoning:* When the argument circles back on itself, using its conclusion as one of its premises.
  • *Ignoring Alternative Explanations:* Overlooking other possible reasons or explanations for a given piece of evidence or observed situation.
When evaluating an argument, pay close attention to these potential pitfalls. This helps you dissect the reasoning and ensure that the evidence provided genuinely supports the conclusion reached. Avoiding logical flaws improves the clarity and effectiveness of your arguments.
Historical Analysis
Historical analysis involves examining past events and interpreting them in context. It's crucial to understand the implications of laws, social norms, and economic conditions during the time period being studied. Here are important steps in conducting historical analysis:
  • *Contextual Understanding:* Look at the cultural, political, and social context of the period. This helps understand why events happened as they did.
  • *Chronological Order:* Understanding the sequence of events can provide clarity about cause and effect relationships.
  • *Source Evaluation:* Analyze primary and secondary sources for reliability and bias. This ensures the information used is valid and supportive of the analysis.
  • *Contrast with Present:* Comparing historical events to current times can offer insights into how past conditions differ from today.
By carefully analyzing these elements, historians attempt to reconstruct the past accurately. It's essential for anyone engaged in historical analysis to question their assumptions and seek corroborating evidence whenever possible.
Evidence Evaluation
Evaluating evidence involves assessing whether the information supports conclusions logically and rigorously. Evidence is the backbone of a strong argument and understanding the type of evidence is crucial in critical reasoning. Here's a breakdown of the evaluation process:
  • *Direct vs. Indirect Evidence:* Direct evidence provides straightforward, direct proof of a fact, while indirect or circumstantial evidence suggests a fact through inference.
  • *Source Reliability:* Determine the trustworthiness of the evidence by considering the source's credibility, expertise, and potential biases.
  • *Relevance and Sufficiency:* Ensure that the evidence directly pertains to the argument and that there's enough to convincingly support the conclusion.
  • *Contradictory Evidence:* Always consider if there is evidence that challenges the conclusions. This helps to create a balanced view.
By methodically evaluating evidence, you can separate sound arguments from those with insufficient support. This process is central to forming well-founded conclusions in critical reasoning scenarios.
Legal Code Interpretation
Interpreting legal codes requires understanding both the letter and the intent of laws within their historical and cultural context. Misunderstandings often arise from overlooking the timing and origins of legal enactments. Here are some guidelines:
  • *Historical Context:* Laws must be interpreted in the context of the period they were enacted. This context gives insight into their purpose and scope.
  • *Literal vs. Intent-Based Interpretation:* While the literal meaning of the text is important, understanding the legislators' intent can guide more accurate interpretations.
  • *Codification and Modification:* Recognize distinctions between when a law was first enacted and later incorporated into legal codes. This helps in understanding its current application.
  • *Comparative Analysis:* Comparing laws across different jurisdictions or time periods can highlight underlying principles and their evolution.
A thorough grasp of these aspects is necessary for legal code interpretation to be accurate and insightful. It ensures that interpretations account for changes over time and across different legal frameworks.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks' rugged appearance. Yet although these trucks are tough-looking, they are exempt from the government's car-safety standards that dictate minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, if involved in a serious high-impact accident, a driver of one of these trucks is more likely to be injured than is a driver of a car that is subject to these government standards. The argument depends on the assumption that (A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks (B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly (C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries (D) the trucks' rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful (E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards

The commercial news media emphasize exceptional events such as airplane crashes at the expense of those such as automobile accidents, which occur far more frequently and represent a far greater risk to the public. Yet the public tends to interpret the degree of emphasis the news media give to these occurrences as indicating the degree of risk they represent. If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them? (A) Print media, such as newspapers and magazines, are a better source of information than are broadcast media. (B) The emphasis given in the commercial news media to major catastrophes is dictated by the public's taste for the extraordinary. (C) Events over which people feel they have no control are generally perceived as more dangerous than those which people feel they can avert or avoid. (D) Where commercial news media constitute the dominant source of information, public perception of risk does not reflect actual risk. (E) A massive outbreak of cholera will be covered more extensively by the news media than will the occurrence of a rarer but less serious disease.

Mayor Smith, one of our few government officials with a record of outspoken, informed, and consistent opposition to nuclear power plant construction projects, has now declared herself in favor of building the nuclear power plant at Littletown. If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors building this power plant, then there is good reason to believe that it will be safe and therefore should be built. The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds? (A) It overlooks the possibility that not all those who fail to speak out on issues of nuclear power are necessarily opposed to it. (B) It assumes without warrant that the qualities enabling a person to be elected to public office confer on that person a grasp of the scientific principles on which technical decisions are based. (C) It fails to establish that a consistent and outspoken opposition is necessarily an informed opposition. (D) It leads to the further but unacceptable conclusion that any project favored by Mayor Smith should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having spoken out in favor of it. (E) It gives no indication of either the basis of Mayor Smith's former opposition to nuclear power plant construction or the reasons for her support for the Littletown project.

A person can develop or outgrow asthma at any age. In children under ten, asthma is twice as likely to develop in boys. Boys are less likely than girls to outgrow asthma, yet by adolescence the percentage of boys with asthma is about the same as the percentage of girls with asthma because a large number of girls develop asthma in early adolescence. Assuming the truth of the passage, one can conclude from it that the number of adolescent boys with asthma is approximately equal to the number of adolescent girls with asthma, if one also knows that (A) a tendency toward asthma is often inherited (B) children who develop asthma before two years of age are unlikely to outgrow it (C) there are approximately equal numbers of adolescent boys and adolescent girls in the population (D) the development of asthma in childhood is not closely related to climate or environment (E) the percentage of adults with asthma is lower than the percentage of adolescents with asthma

In clinical trials of new medicines, half of the subjects receive the drug being tested and half receive a physiologically inert substance-a placebo. Trials are designed with the intention that neither subjects nor experimenters will find out which subjects are actually being given the drug being tested. However, this intention is frequently frustrated because Which one of the following, if true, most appropriately completes the explanation? (A) often the subjects who receive the drug being tested develop symptoms that the experimenters recognize as side effects of the physiologically active drug (B) subjects who believe they are receiving the drug being tested often display improvements in their conditions regardless of whether what is administered to them is physiologically active or not (C) in general, when the trial is intended to establish the experimental drug's safety rather than its effectiveness, all of the subjects are healthy volunteers (D) when a trial runs a long time, few of the experimenters will work on it from inception to conchusion (E) the people who are subjects for clinical trials must, by law, be volunteers and must be informed of the possibility that they will receive a placebo

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free