#13 - Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and

[william92]

So the flaw is mainly because of the author’s use of false analogy? (Yeti to trade)
Because it seems like the author points out one of the common flaws which is the lack of the evidence for something does not prove it’s false. I’m also not sure if the author is clearly stating that the trade did exist because his/her conclusion is simply that the lack of evidence does not prove the absence (basically stating Mistaken Negation?). Other than use of false analogy, it’s hard to see the author’s argument is flawed otherwise.
Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

I do see this one as being about a false analogy, william92. The author is pointing out someone else's flaw (a Lack of Evidence flaw) and is using an analogy to show why the lack of evidence is insufficient. The problem for this author is that the issue of written records of trade may be different than the yeti issue. Perhaps, unlike the case of the yeti, a lack of evidence would be compelling, even sufficient, to prove the conclusion when it comes to trade and written records? So to weaken the argument, we attack the analogy by showing that a lack of written records may actually be good evidence for a lack of trade. Sure, the author made a valid point about arguments made based on a lack of evidence generally, but perhaps this case is different? That difference, where the analogy may not hold, is what weakens the argument.