- Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:36 pm
You're asking the right question. I'm going to do what seems like ducking it at first, but I promise there's a reason for it. I don't think we can fashion an appropriate argument here that uses the same content the Critic uses and that also does what answer choice C says. That's because even if we came up with a "distinction" (a difference) between the "possibility" situation the Critic describes (the Nayal situation) and the "certainty" situation the Critic describes (today's statute books), that distinction/difference (whatever it is) wouldn't be at all responsive to the Historian's argument. So it wouldn't really make sense.
What answer choice C is describing would only really be a relevant style of responsive argument if someone (like the Historian) had suggested that things we know with certainty have the same characteristics (or the same level of certainty of occurring) as things that are merely possible. Then, a second speaker could come behind and point out the difference between what we know for sure and what is only possible. A very rudimentary example:
Weather Watcher: We know that all weather factors will come together to produce rain next week. Therefore, my Tuesday baseball game is going to be rained out.
Critic: I'll admit we can be sure it will rain next week. But Tuesday is only one of the days that comprise next week. So all we really know about Tuesday is that it's possible it will rain.
I hope this helps!