Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Response9% picked this

   Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of

   This sounds like an additional reason why we could get rid of handwriting analysis as evidence of character (if we have other / better ways to achieve the same thing). But this has nothing to do with Greg's response -- it doesn't address the potential of a licensing board to set standards, deter frauds, and eliminate the threat of exaggerating the reliability of handwriting analysis.

   9%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Many people can provide two samples of their handwriting so different that only a highly trained professional could identify them as having

   If the objection here is supposed to be "only a professional could tell these are from the same person", Greg could just say, "Sure, I agree. And I'm saying we would have professionals, and only professionals, once we get that licensing board up and running."

   4%
3. C

   Not an Objection20% picked this

   A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing

   Once the licensing board was in place, we wouldn't worry that some qualified people would be turned down (as this answer is saying). We'd be worried that some unqualified people would still make it through.

   20%
4. D

   Correct49% picked this

   The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s

   Why this is right

   This a confusing, but strong, idea, so we might want to diagram it to think about what it's saying: IF you claim handwriting provides reliable evidence, THEN you're irresponsible By contrapositive, if you're responsible, then you wouldn't claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence. The weakening effect is somewhat weird, then. If Greg builds his licensing board, and it deters all the irresponsible analysts, then there will only be responsible analysts left. According to this answer, none of the responsible analysts will claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of character, so how will licensed handwriting analysts be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment. Imagine you're in a courtroom, once this licensing board has come to fruition. A handwriting analyst comes up to testify to a defendant's character, via analyzing their handwriting. If she's irresponsible, she'll be deterred by the licensing board from saying that analyzing handwriting is a reliable tool. If she's responsible, this answer choice says that she would never claim that analyzing handwriting is a reliable tool. So if the defense attorney asks, "Ma'am, is analyzing handwriting a reliable way to to assess character?", then both irresponsible and responsible analysts would say, "No it is not." Thus, it won't be a legit tool. Perhaps an easier way to understand this answer is to just think that Greg is saying, "Hey, handwriting analysis gets a bad reputation because there are some bad apples making exaggerated claims. Once we get a licensing board, we'll weed out the bad apples and have ourselves a respected tool." This answer is essentially saying, "The only people who consider this a respected tool are bad apples. So once you eliminate them, there's no one left."

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

   49%
5. E

   No Impact18% picked this

   The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing

   This might make it hard to hire a licensed analyst; they might have a large waiting-list because they'll be in demand, but this answer does nothing to make it sound like they wouldn't be a legitimate source, if you were able to get one.

   18%