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.

Gregory starts by agreeing with Sasha's stated premise, that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic. However, he then suggests an alternative way to deal with this starting premise or situation, besides banning handwriting analysis altogether: setting up a licensing board. Since such a board, according to Gregory, will stop exaggerated claims about handwriting analysis, he concludes that if a board is set up, handwriting analysis will be a legitimate tool for courtroom assessments. Notice how specific Gregory's claim is: handwriting analysis will be a legitimate tool "when such a board is established" -- a sufficient condition. We don't know when that condition will be met, or what Gregory thinks we should do in the meantime. For all we know, Gregory might agree that there should be temporary restrictions on handwriting analysis until such a board is established. But by suggesting an alternative way to deal with the problem that Sasha points out, Gregory argues that there will be future situations where the sufficient condition is met -- i.e. where a board is set up -- and where handwriting analysis is a valid tool. Thus, Gregory disagrees with banning handwriting analysis overall.