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 arguing that the yeti, an 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 best expresses the point of the argument? ['The view that there was trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages can only be disproved by showing that no references to this trade exist in surviving records.', 'In order to prove that in the early Middle Ages there was trade between Europe and East Asia it is necessary to find both Asian and European evidence that such trade existed.', 'There is no more evidence that trade between Europe and East Asia existed in the early Middle Ages than there is that the yeti exists.', 'That trade between Europe and East Asia did not exist in the early Middle Ages cannot be established simply by the absence of a certain sort of evidence that this trade existed.']