LSAT 103 – Section 1 – Question 25

LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 25

September 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:58

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT103 S1 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
7%
161
B
80%
166
C
8%
161
D
2%
157
E
3%
156
139
150
161
 +Medium 147.884 +SubsectionMedium

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: You are right that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic. But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. When such a board is established, however, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Sasha’s claim that handwriting analysis should be banned in court, Gregory concludes handwriting analysis will be a legitimate courtroom tool once a licensing board is established. As evidence, Gregory suggests that a licensing board would set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Gregory counters the position held by Sasha. He does this by defending the use of handwriting analysts in limited instances where that handwriting analyst is licensed. In Gregory’s view, this would solve the problem both he and Sasha agree occurs when handwriting analysis is used in court.

A
He ignores evidence introduced as support for Sasha’s recommendation.
Gregory does not ignore the evidence introduced by Sasha. In fact, Gregory agrees with Sasha that the current use of handwriting analysis is problematic.
B
He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
The principle Gregory defends is the acceptable use of handwriting analysis as a courtroom tool. The restricted class is those handwriting analysts that are licensed under a licensing board.
C
He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
There is no specific evidence presented in either Gregory or Sasha’s argument. Both Gregory and Sasha discuss the use of handwriting analysis on a general, theoretical level.
D
He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
Gregory does not identify a self-contradictory statement. Instead, he acknowledges the problem Sasha identified and proposed a potential solution.
E
He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
Sasha’s argument does not manifest the characteristics it condemns. Sasha condemns handwriting analysis for habitually exaggerated claims. Her solution to this is to ban handwriting analysis in its entirety.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply