PrepTest 103, Section 1, Question 26
Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court(78 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- ACourts routinely use(12 more words not shown)
- BMany people can(25 more words not shown)
- CA licensing board(20 more words not shown)
- DThe only handwriting(14 more words not shown)
- EThe number of(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A license could change who testifies. Would it make handwriting reveal character?
The original distinction still bothers me. A specialist might compare a ransom note with someone's handwriting to investigate who wrote it. That wouldn't by itself tell us whether the writer is honest, cruel, or otherwise of good or bad character. Expertise in identifying handwriting doesn't automatically establish expertise in reading a personality from it.
Gregory thinks the current problem is irresponsible practitioners making exaggerated claims. His solution is a board that sets standards and licenses practitioners. But that solution needs there to be a responsible way to offer the character assessment he wants to preserve.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for Sasha's strongest reply to Gregory. I'd challenge that last connection: perhaps competent handwriting work still can't responsibly support claims about character.
Working the answers
- A
Courts having other ways to assess character doesn't establish that handwriting analysis is illegitimate. More than one tool could be useful for the same task. Gregory needn't claim handwriting is indispensable to defend its use. A supplies an alternative without showing why his proposed tool remains unreliable.
- B
The different samples are hard to connect, but the answer says a highly trained professional could identify the common writer. It doesn't say identification is impossible, and it doesn't show that licensing fails. More importantly, identifying who wrote two samples is different from judging that person's character. B concerns the first task while Gregory is defending the second.
- C
Denying licenses to some responsible analysts could be unfair. But that doesn't show the analysts who receive licenses would be unreliable. Excluding some good practitioners and admitting bad practitioners are different problems. C describes the first, whereas a challenge to the trustworthiness of licensed testimony would need to address the second or the underlying method.
- DCorrect
Every analyst who claims handwriting provides reliable character evidence is irresponsible. That directly challenges Gregory's picture of a responsible, licensed group offering this kind of assessment.
If the board successfully deters irresponsible claims, the character claims Gregory wants to preserve would themselves have to be deterred. If licensed practitioners continue making them, the board hasn't removed the irresponsible conduct. D therefore undermines the proposed fix: regulating practitioners doesn't supply a responsible version of the character testimony at issue.
- E
A small pool of people who can meet professional standards could still provide legitimate testimony. Gregory's claim isn't that many analysts would qualify. Nor does a small number by itself prove the standards are good or bad. The important question is whether the qualifying practitioners can responsibly assess character from handwriting, not how many practitioners there would be.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.