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
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.
25.
Gregory does which one of ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████
a
He ignores evidence ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████████
b
He defends a █████████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ████████
c
He abstracts a ███████ █████████ ████ ████████ █████████
d
He identifies a ██████████████████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████
e
He shows that ███████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████████ ████ ██ █████████