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
Gregory concludes that when a licensing board is established for handwriting experts, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool. This is based on his belief that current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problemtic only because there isn’t a licensing board set up to deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that once a licensing board is established, handwriting analysis will be reliable enough for the courtroom.
A
Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person’s character.
The existence of alternatives to handwriting analysis don’t impact whether handwriting analysis will be legitimate once a licensing board is established.
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 suggests handwriting analysis might be difficult to do reliably for someone who’s untrained, but that doesn’t undermine Gregory’s position. To him, once a licensing board is established, professional standards will be set, which will lead to trained practitioners.
C
A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
This doesn’t undermine the idea that the licensing board can raise professional standards and help handwriting analysis become legitimate. As long as the people who are licensed are qualified, it doesn’t matter that some qualified people are unlucky and don’t get a license.
D
The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
If true, (D) means that there wouldn’t be any analysts that could be licensed by the board. If the only analysts who would testify that handwriting analysis is reliable are irresponsible, the licensing board won’t help handwriting analysis become legitimate.
E
The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
Even if there’s a small number of analysts who can be licensed, they could be highly trained and responsible, and therefore still help make handwriting analysis legitimate in the courtroom.
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.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are cost overruns more common in the fixed-profit kind of “cost-plus” contract than in the fixed-percentage kind of “cost-plus” contract, even though under the fixed-percentage kind higher costs would lead to higher profits for the contractor?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us about a difference between the fixed-profit and fixed-percentage kinds of “cost-plus” contract that would lead to a higher likelihood of cost overruns for the fixed-profit kind.
A
Clients are much less likely to agree to a fixed-profit type of cost-plus contract when it is understood that under certain conditions the project will be scuttled than they are when there is no such understanding.
This tells us about likelihood of accepting a fixed-profit contract when there are conditions that would lead to the end of the project. But this doesn’t impact the costs incurred on a project or why those costs more commonly go over expected costs for fixed-profits contracts.
B
On long-term contracts, cost projections take future inflation into account, but since the figures used are provided by the government, they are usually underestimates.
This doesn’t differentiate between fixed-profit and fixed-percentage contracts, so it’s not going to explain why cost overruns are more common for fixed-profit contracts.
C
On any sizable construction project, the contractor bills the client monthly or quarterly, so any tendency for original cost estimates to be exceeded can be detected early.
This doesn’t differentiate between fixed-profit and fixed-percentage contracts, so it’s not going to explain why cost overruns are more common for fixed-profit contracts.
D
Clients billed under a cost-plus contract are free to review individual billings in order to uncover wasteful expenditures, but they do so only when the contractor’s profit varies with cost.
If clients review for wasteful expenditures only when profit varies with cost, that means they don’t review for wasteful expenditures on fixed-profit contracts (where profit doesn’t vary with cost). This could be why cost overruns are more common for this kind of contract.
E
The practice of submitting deliberately exaggerated cost estimates is most common in the case of fixed-profit contracts, because it makes the profit, as a percentage of estimated cost, appear modest.
Cost overruns involve the excess cost over the estimated cost. If fixed-profit contracts more often involve exaggerated estimates, that should lead us to expect fewer cost overruns for these contracts, since the initial estimate would be higher than the actual expected costs.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the chances intelligent life will emerge on a planet are low. This is because planetary systems generally lack large planets, which protected Earth from large comets before life on Earth eventually arose.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that most or all planetary systems are afflicted with large comets that could impact planets capable of producing intelligent life, and that these large comets can only be avoided by the presence of large planets. This means the author assumes there are relatively few planetary systems that differ from Earth’s planetary system.
A
whether all planetary systems are formed from similar amounts of matter
We’re not interested in matter. We have no reason to believe all planetary systems have to have the exact same features for the author’s argument to work. They simply have to have planets and comets.
B
whether intelligent species would be likely to survive if a comet struck their planet
We don’t care about what happens once intelligent life emerges. The author’s conclusion is about the likelihood intelligent life will emerge in the first place.
C
whether large comets could be deflected by only one large planet rather than by two
This tells us one large planet would suffice, but the author claims most planetary systems don’t have any large planets. This doesn’t help us evaluate the author’s claim about the likelihood of intelligent life emerging, which is tied to the average features of planetary systems.
D
how high the chances are that planetary systems will contain many large comets
If virtually every planetary system contained many large comets, the author’s argument would be greatly strengthened. If the opposite was true, then there would be no need for large planets to protect smaller planets capable of producing intelligent life.
E
how likely it is that planetary systems containing large planets will also contain planets the size of Earth
The author never claims Earth is the only size of planet that can produce intelligent life. If larger or smaller planets were also capable of doing so, then we wouldn’t care how likely it is that planetary systems contain planets the size of Earth.