LSAT 103 – Section 1 – Question 26

LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 26

September 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT103 S1 Q26
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
6%
158
B
6%
161
C
20%
162
D
56%
168
E
13%
161
156
163
171
 +Hardest 147.884 +SubsectionMedium

Kevin’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

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.

Gregory: You are right that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic. But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. When such a board is established, however, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.

Summarize Argument
Gregory concludes that when a licensing board is established for handwriting experts, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool. This is based on his belief that current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problemtic only because there isn’t a licensing board set up to deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that once a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis will be reliable enough for the courtroom.

A
Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person’s character.
The existence of alternatives to handwriting analysis don’t impact whether handwriting analysis will be legitimate once a licensing board is established.
B
Many people can provide two samples of their handwriting so different that only a highly trained professional could identify them as having been written by the same person.
This suggests handwriting analysis might be difficult to do reliably for someone who’s untrained, but that doesn’t undermine Gregory’s position. To him, once a licensing board is established, professional standards will be set, which will lead to trained practitioners.
C
A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
This doesn’t undermine the idea that the licensing board can raise professional standards and help handwriting analysis become legitimate. As long as the people who are licensed are qualified, it doesn’t matter that some qualified people are unlucky and don’t get a license.
D
The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
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.
E
The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
Even if there’s a small number of analysts who can be licensed, they could be highly trained and responsible, and therefore still help make handwriting analysis legitimate in the courtroom.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply