Self-paced
Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of a person's character: handwriting analysts called as witnesses habitually exaggerate the reliability of their analyses.
████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████ █ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Sasha's main point is that handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence for a person's character. Her premise is that handwriting analysts exaggerate the reliability of their method. Gregory agrees that there are problems with how handwriting analysis is currently used as evidence, but says that these problems can be addressed by setting up a licensing board that will stop irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. He concludes that when such a board is established, handwriting analysis will be a legitimate tool for courtroom assessment -- thus implying that it should not be banned from the courtroom, as Sasha suggests.
25.
Gregory does which one of ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████
a
He ignores evidence ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████████
Gregory does not ignore any evidence introduced by Sasha. In fact, Gregory seems to agree with Sasha's evidence that analysts currently tend to exaggerate their claims, and he admits that this is problematic.
b
He defends a █████████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ████████
This is accurate. The principle Gregory defends is the idea that handwriting analysis can be used as evidence in the courtroom. He insists that handwriting analysis is a legitimate courtroom tool in situations where a certain condition is met: if a licensing board is there to vet handwriting analysts and stop them from making exaggerated claims. In other words, the principle that handwriting analysis is a legitimate courtroom tool is valid in a restricted class of cases: cases where there is a licensing board like the one Gregory describes.
c
He abstracts a ███████ █████████ ████ ████████ █████████
Gregory does not provide any specific evidence. His conclusion is based on general statements about the role of a licensing board that doesn't yet exist, not on specific details about real licensing boards.
d
He identifies a ██████████████████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████
Gregory never claims that any statement Sasha makes is self-contradictory. Instead, he acknowledges the problem Sasha identifies and proposes an alternative solution.
e
He shows that ███████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████████ ████ ██ █████████
For this answer choice to be accurate, Gregory would essentially have to accuse Sasha of making exaggerated claims about her reliability, since that is the characteristic she condemns in handwriting analysts. Gregory doesn't do this.