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.
████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████ █ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████
Sasha wants handwriting analysis banned as evidence of character, because the analysts who testify keep overstating how reliable their analyses are. Gregory agrees there is a problem right now, but he blames it on one specific cause: there is no licensing board. With no board setting professional standards, irresponsible analysts are free to make exaggerated claims. Gregory concludes that once a licensing board exists and weeds those people out, handwriting analysis done by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate way to assess character in court.
Gregory treats exaggeration as the whole disease, and his fix, a licensing board, only removes the analysts who overstate reliability. So his argument assumes that handwriting analysis actually works for judging character, as long as the responsible people are the ones doing it. If handwriting simply cannot reveal character no matter who performs it, a licensing board would not fix anything.
Gregory does which one of ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████
He ignores evidence ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████████
Gregory does not ignore Sasha's evidence. Her support is that analysts habitually exaggerate how reliable their analyses are, and Gregory takes that evidence head on. He accepts that it happens and explains it as the result of there being no licensing board.
He defends a █████████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ████████
This accurately describes what Gregory does. The principle he is defending is that handwriting analysis can be a legitimate tool for assessing character in court. Rather than claim it works in anyone's hands, he narrows the group it applies to, namely licensed practitioners once a board sets standards. By limiting the practice to that approved group, he keeps the principle alive against Sasha's call for a total ban.
He abstracts a ███████ █████████ ████ ████████ █████████
This describes building a broad rule out of particular cases, which is not what Gregory does. He starts with a general claim, that a licensing board would deter irresponsible analysts, and applies it to handwriting analysis. He does not collect specific examples and draw a general principle out of them, so the direction described here is backwards.
He identifies a ██████████████████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████
Gregory never claims Sasha contradicts herself. He accepts what she says about analysts exaggerating and disputes only her conclusion that the practice should be banned. At no point does he point to two of her statements that contradict each other, which is what identifying a self-contradiction would require.
He shows that ███████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████████ ████ ██ █████████
The undesirable characteristic Sasha condemns is exaggerating how reliable handwriting analysis is. This answer describes turning that criticism back on Sasha, claiming her own argument is guilty of the very thing she complains about. Gregory never does this. He does not accuse Sasha of exaggerating or of committing any flaw she points at. Instead he explains what causes the problem and how a licensing board would remove it.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.