Critical Reasoning

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 alluring that
the yeri, arr 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.
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 European 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.

kaulnikhil wrote:
(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,

(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.

B and C are out as they are irrelevant. D does provide some tangential info which is again not helpful. So contenders are A and E. A says that written records are not needed because trade was archaeological, since written records are not needed the two arguments about yeti in Himalkayas and the one of European trade are not parallel, and so this counter the argument.

E is having some likely info that do not help us infer much, would have been but as well wouldn't have been. I will Choose A.

I think it should be E.
The conclusion here is Absence of records --> does not mean no trade between Europe and Asia

A i think strengthens the argument. Absence of records --> still trade exists
E Absence of records --> because trade did not existed.

May be i am wrong. What is the OA?

IMO it is A, as written records are not there, sightings are necessary to prove existence.

OA E