LSAT Explanation PT 19, S4, Q26: Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned

LSAT Question Stem

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

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we have a conversation between Sasha and Gregory discussing the use of handwriting analysis as evidence in court. Sasha argues that handwriting analysis should be banned in court due to the exaggeration of the reliability of the analyses by the analysts. Gregory agrees that the current use of handwriting analysis is problematic, but he believes that the issue exists because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. He concludes that once a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will become a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.

The structure of the argument can be broken down as follows:

Sasha's Premise: Handwriting analysts habitually exaggerate the reliability of their analyses.

Sasha's Conclusion: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of a person's character.

Gregory's Premise: The problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.

Gregory's Conclusion: When a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.

The question type is Weaken, which means we need to find the answer choice that provides Sasha with the strongest counter to Gregory's response.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person's character.

- This answer choice does not directly address Gregory's argument that a licensing board would make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool. It only states that there are other means to provide evidence, which is irrelevant to the argument.

b) Many people can provide two samples of their handwriting so different that only a highly trained professional could identify them as having been written by the same person.

- This answer choice suggests that handwriting analysis might be difficult, but it doesn't address the issue of exaggerated claims or the potential effectiveness of a licensing board.

c) A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.

- While this answer choice raises concerns about the licensing board's fairness, it does not directly undermine Gregory's argument that a licensing board would deter exaggerated claims and make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool.

d) The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person's character are irresponsible.

- This answer choice directly challenges Gregory's conclusion. If the only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence are irresponsible, then establishing a licensing board may not be enough to make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool, as there would be no responsible analysts to provide reliable evidence.

e) The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.

- This answer choice is tempting, but it is unclear how many analysts would be needed by the court system, and "very small" could mean any number of analysts. It doesn't directly address the issue of exaggerated claims or the potential effectiveness of a licensing board.

The correct answer is D, as it provides Sasha with the strongest counter to Gregory's response by challenging the idea that a licensing board would make handwriting analysis a legitimate courtroom tool. If the only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence are irresponsible, then establishing a licensing board may not be enough to ensure that handwriting analysis becomes a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.