Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining people’s handwriting. ███ ████████ █ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ █████████████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████
The graphologists believe that handwriting reveals permanent character traits. For example, they think a strong cross on the "t" indicates enthusiasm, a personality feature you're stuck with for life.
The author doesn't try to disprove this directly. Instead, she points out a fact: with practice, people can train themselves to write with a strong cross on the "t." Combine that fact with the graphologists' own theory and you get a strange result. If the cross reveals a permanent trait, and a person can choose to start drawing a strong cross, then that person has just changed a "permanent" trait. So the graphologists are committed to a self-contradicting position: that permanent traits can be changed.
This is a Method of Reasoning question, so we want a specific prediction if possible. The author's strategy is a classic reductio ad absurdum. She takes the graphologists' own view, adds a fact that isn't reasonably in dispute (people can change their handwriting), and shows that the combination forces an absurd conclusion: that "permanent" traits can be changed, which contradicts the very meaning of "permanent."
Notice that she never directly argues that handwriting doesn't reveal character. Rather, she indirectly shows this by pointing out how the graphologists' claim implies an idea that doesn't make sense (that permanent traits can be changed).
The argument against graphology proceeds ██
citing apparently incontestable ████████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████
This describes the author's strategy. The "apparently incontestable evidence" is that people can change their handwriting with practice. The "view in question" is the graphologists' claim that handwriting reveals permanent traits. Put the two together and you get the absurd consequence that permanent traits can be changed, which doesn't make sense, since "permanent" means unchangeable.
demonstrating that an ██████████ █████████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █ █████████
The author isn't claiming graphology is a platitude (a trite, obvious point). She's treating it as a substantive claim and showing it leads to a contradiction. To fit (B), the author would have to argue that graphology states something everyone already accepts as true, which she never does.
arguing that a ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ████
The author says nothing about whether the people being analyzed are aware that graphology is being used on them. Her objection would apply just as much to a person who has never heard of graphology and just happens to practice their "t" cross. The argument doesn't turn on awareness at all.
showing that proponents ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████
Tempting, because the author does undermine the graphologists' view. But she doesn't address whether graphologists have a theoretical justification for it. She just shows where their claim leads when combined with another fact. (D) would describe an argument like "graphologists have produced no studies linking handwriting features to traits." That's not what's happening here.
attacking a technique ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ██
The author never argues that character traits can be detected without handwriting. She says nothing about alternative methods of detecting traits at all. Her argument is purely about a contradiction implied by graphology, not about whether some other technique does the same job better.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic