Self-study
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.
26.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████
a
Courts routinely use █████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████
Irrelevant. Pointing out that courts can use other means to provide evidence of a person's character doesn't do anything to undermine Gregory's claim that handwriting analysis will be a legitimate tool in its own right once a board is set up.
b
Many people can ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ ████████████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████
Incorrect. (B) could fit very well with Gregory’s argument: if (B) is true, then it might be even more important to establish a licensing board to make sure only highly trained professionals conduct handwriting analysis for the courtroom.
c
A licensing board █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ████████████
Irrelevant. Even if it is true that the board would “inevitably” turn away some responsible analysts, what matters to the argument is not the analysts the board doesn’t give a license to, but the analysts it does give a license to. Even if the board refuses some responsible analysts, the analysts it does give a license to might still be responsible enough to make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool, as Gregory argues.
d
The only handwriting ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████████████
Correct. (D) does exactly what we described: it shows that it is impossible for the kind of board Gregory is describing to achieve its purpose of deterring irresponsible analysts and making handwriting analysis a reliable tool for assessing a person’s character in court. If (D) is true, then deterring “irresponsible” analysts would leave no analysts who would be willing to use handwriting analysis as a reliable guide to character in court. So either the board would have no one to license, or the “responsible” analysts they license would in fact be irresponsible.
e
The number of ███████████ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ███ ██ █ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████
Irrelevant. (E) might seem like it works, but (E) doesn’t show that it is impossible to create the licensing board, or for the licensing board to achieve its purpose. Instead, (E) says that once a board is established, there will be a “very small” number of analysts who can meet its standards. But that’s completely fine. George never suggests that there will be many analysts who will meet the licensing board’s standards; as long as there is at least one analyst who meets the board’s standards and turns handwriting analysis into a reliable courtroom tool, George’s argument could still stand. Notice that the correct answer choice, (C), works by pointing out that there would be no one who would meet the board’s criterion of being a “responsible” analyst.