Gregory does not ignore any evidence introduced by Sasha. In fact, Gregory seems to grant Sasha's premise that analysts currently tend to exaggerate their claims, and he admits that this is problematic.

This is accurate. The principle Gregory defends is that handwriting analysis is a legitimate courtroom tool. He insists that it is a legitimate courtroom tool if the practitioners doing the analysis are restricted to a responsible group that is licensed to practice. In other words, the principle--handwriting analysis is a legitimate courtroom tool--is valid in a restricted class of cases--if a responsible, licensed practitioner is conducting the analysis.

Gregory does not provide any specific evidence. His conclusion is based on a general prediction that once a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis will be a legitimate courtroom tool.

Gregory never claims any statement Sasha makes is self-contradictory. Instead, he acknowledges the problem Sasha identifies, and proposes a potential solution.

For this answer choice to be accurate, Gregory would basically have to accuse Sasha of making exaggerated claims about her reliability, since that is the characteristic she condemns in handwriting analysis. Gregory doesn't do this.