Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S1 · Q25 Gregory does which one of the following

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Sasha's Conclusion

Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as character evidence.

Sasha's Evidence (colon)

Analysts called as witnesses habitually exaggerate the reliability of their work.

Gregory's Implicit Conclusion

Handwriting analysis shouldn't be banned.

Gregory's Evidence

Sure, it's currently problematic, but only because no licensing board sets standards and deters irresponsible analysts. Once a board exists, analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool.

Evaluate

Does G respond with any of the Big 3 Method Moves (analogies, faulty implications, alternatives)?

Kind of. He sort of points to an alternate plan than the one proposed in S's conclusion. He's saying, .

But it's probably not likely the answer will use that language. It might describe the fact that Gregory points out that real source of the problem (a lack of a licensing board), suggesting that the activity of handwriting analysis isn't fundamentally flawed (as Sasha may be assuming).

Goal

Find any answer that is descriptively true.

25.

Gregory does which one of the following in responding to Sasha's argument?

  1. He ignores evidence introduced as

    Contradicted

    Gregory does the opposite of ignoring Sasha's evidence. He opens by agreeing that current use is problematic.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    He defends a principle by

    Why this is right

    I'd never pick this on a first pass, because it doesn't feel like Gregory is defending a principle or restricting a class of cases. But ultimately this is our best available answer. We could say that Gregory is implicitly defending the principle that "handwriting analysis is okay as courtroom character evidence", but only for the restricted future-class of analysis performed by licensed practitioners once a licensing board exists.

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  3. He abstracts a general principle

    Bad Description

    Gregory offers no specific examples and extracts no general principle from them. He diagnoses the cause of one problem and predicts how fixing it would change things. Nothing is being generalized from particulars.

    12% picked this

  4. He identifies a self-contradictory statement

    Bad Description

    Sasha's argument contains no statement that contradicts itself, and Gregory never claims one does. This is a famous style of trap answer on Method that is almost always wrong.

    2% picked this

  5. He shows that Sasha’s argument

    Bad Description

    The characteristic Sasha condemns is analysts exaggerating reliability. Gregory never suggests that Sasha herself is exaggerating anything.

    7% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free