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.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████
Courts routinely use █████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████
Whether courts have other ways to assess character says nothing about whether handwriting analysis will be legitimate once a board exists. Gregory never claims handwriting analysis is the only tool available, just that it will become a legitimate one. The existence of alternatives leaves that conclusion untouched, so this gives Sasha no counter.
Many people can ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ ████████████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████
This shows handwriting analysis is hard to do, but only for someone who is untrained, which actually fits Gregory's point rather than fighting it. His whole proposal is that a licensing board would ensure the analysis is done by trained, licensed practitioners. Pointing out that a highly trained professional is needed to do the job right supports the value of licensing instead of undermining it.
A licensing board █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ████████████
This attacks the board for being unfair to some analysts, but that is not the part of the board Gregory's argument depends on. Gregory only needs the analysts who do get licensed to be responsible and capable of assessing character reliably. He does not need every responsible analyst to receive a license. So even if the board accidentally turns away some qualified people for unrelated reasons, the ones it does license could still make handwriting analysis a legitimate tool, and Gregory's conclusion survives. This answer tempts because it sounds like a direct hit on the licensing board, which sits at the center of Gregory's response. But it questions whether the board treats analysts fairly, not whether the analysts it approves can actually judge character, and that second issue is the one that matters.
The only handwriting ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████████████
If true, (D) means that there wouldn’t be any analysts that could be licensed by the board. If the only analysts who would testify that handwriting analysis is reliable are irresponsible, the licensing board won’t help handwriting analysis become legitimate.
The number of ███████████ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ███ ██ █ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████
A small number of qualified analysts is still enough for Gregory. He does not need many licensed practitioners, just licensed practitioners who can reliably assess character. Even a handful of highly trained, responsible analysts could make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool. Scarcity does not show the technique fails, so this does not counter Gregory.
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.