PrepTest 103, Section 1, Question 25
Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court(78 more words not shown)
Gregory does which one of(7 more words not shown)
- AHe ignores evidence(6 more words not shown)
- BHe defends a(12 more words not shown)
- CHe abstracts a(5 more words not shown)
- DHe identifies a(5 more words not shown)
- EHe shows that(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Messy handwriting doesn't tell me someone has a bad character.
That is my first reaction to the proposed courtroom use. Comparing handwriting to help identify the writer of a note would be one task. Using it to decide whether the writer is a good or bad person would be another. I can see why Sasha might object to the second use, although her stated reason is specifically that the witnesses exaggerate their analyses' reliability.
Gregory partly agrees: the current use is problematic. But he treats the problem as something professional standards could fix. A licensing board would deter irresponsible claims, and analysis by licensed practitioners could then be used to assess character. He accepts the present problem while resisting Sasha's proposed ban.
What we’re looking for
For the question about his response, I'd describe that as partial agreement plus a proposed solution. He introduces a licensing distinction that is supposed to make some future use acceptable. We don't have to agree that licensing would really solve the problem to identify what he is doing.
Working the answers
- A
He doesn't ignore the exaggerated claims Sasha describes. He acknowledges a problem with the current use and proposes professional standards as the remedy. We might think that remedy is inadequate, but responding inadequately to evidence isn't the same as failing to address it.
- BCorrect
The principle he defends is that handwriting analysis can be a legitimate courtroom tool for assessing character. The restricted class is analysis provided by licensed practitioners after the proposed board is established.
He isn't defending every analyst's current testimony. He narrows the proposed acceptable use to practitioners meeting the new professional standard. That captures the licensing distinction in my initial description, even though “defends a principle by restricting the class” is a more abstract way to phrase it.
- C
Gregory doesn't present specific successful cases and infer a general principle from them. For example, he doesn't describe several occasions on which handwriting correctly revealed someone's character and generalize from that record. He proposes a way to regulate practitioners and claims it will make their testimony legitimate. That's a different move.
- D
Sasha's recommendation and her reason don't contradict each other. Analysts exaggerating reliability fits her proposal to exclude their character assessments. Gregory disagrees about whether the problem warrants a ban, but he doesn't identify two incompatible statements in Sasha's argument. Disagreement alone doesn't establish a self-contradiction.
- E
This would require Gregory to accuse Sasha's own argument of the exaggeration she condemns in analysts. He doesn't say that she overstates the reliability of her claims or that her reasoning displays the same defect. His response offers a proposed remedy for the analysts' conduct, not a charge of hypocrisy against Sasha.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.