Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of

Talk about a weird one. Did this in 1:17 but was by no means perfectly sure about what was going on. I guess a general overview of the situation is as follows: S says that HA should be banned because analysts exaggerate the reliability of their analyses. G responds by saying that the only problem is there is no oversight that will maintain standards - and thus deter irresponsible analyst from making exaggerated claims

It might be good to keep and eye on the verbs used in the answer choices.

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 analyst 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.


Gregory does which one of the following in responding to Sasha’s argument?


(A) He ignores evidence introduced as support for Sasha’s recommendation.
Well, he did admit that there was a problem with the current way of doing things, so saying he was ignoring evidence is clearly wrong, I daresay.

(B) He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
It's a weak answer to justify but G basically is saying that all we need are reliable Analysts (a restricted class), who will be filtered out through an oversight licencing board. As far as defending a principle goes, I guess he is defending HA being used in courts while S is asking for HA to be banned.

(C) He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
A general principle? Specific evidence? This just doesn't seem right. G responds by saying if we had oversight everything would be fine. Perhaps you could say he is considering adopting a general way of doing things with a specific situation but I'm not too comfortable with the ABSTRACTS word.

(D) He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
G doesn't attack S's argument, let alone identify a self-contradictory statement.

(E) He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
G doesn't attack S's argument. Freebie elimination with the UNDESIRABLE and what not is written here that is clearly way off.