Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S1 · Q26 Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned

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.

Gregory's Conclusion

Only the current use of handwriting as evidence is problematic.

Gregory's Evidence

Right now there's no licensing board to set standards and deter frauds. When a board is established, it will be a legitimate courtroom tool.

Evaluate

How would Sasha respond to G's claim that it's only the lack of a licensing board that is preventing handwriting analysis from being a legitimate courtroom tool?

If we were trying to still argue that handwriting analysis as evidence of a person's character should be banned in court, what would we say about that hypothetical licensing board?

Maybe we would just be pessimistic about whether any licensing board would really be able / willing / likely to carry out its intended job: - maybe there's no way to set standards with something as variable as handwriting - maybe the board would lack the enforcement power to deter frauds - maybe the board would quickly become filled with personnel who themselves have fraudulent expertise.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the

26.

Which one of the following, if true, would provide Sasha with the strongest counter to Gregory's response?

  1. Courts routinely use means other

    Not a Response

    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% picked this

  2. Many people can provide two

    No Impact

    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% picked this

  3. A licensing board would inevitably

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    The only handwriting analysts who

    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% picked this

  5. The number of handwriting analysts

    No Impact

    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% 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