Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
09 Apr 2020, 03:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
75% (01:44) correct
25%
(01:54)
wrong
based on 357
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
(B) He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
(C) He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
(D) He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
(E) He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
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.
(B) He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
(C) He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
(D) He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
(E) He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
09 Apr 2020, 04:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
09 Apr 2020, 04:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
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?
At first glance, all the answers look wrong! but we need to find one let's do it.
Sasha's argument is pretty clear: saying that handwriting analysis should be banned as courtroom evidence because
handwriting analysts exaggerate the reliability of the analysis.
In response Gregory accepts the claim to some extent but then cite the reason behind it. He says due to unavailability of licensing standards & professional boards, analysts make exaggerating claims. When such boards and standards will be available this would not be the case.
(A) He ignores evidence introduced as support for Sasha’s recommendation.
--Out of scope, No evidence cited by Sasha.
(B)He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
-- Correct answer. Though Gregory does not defend the argument, you should review this choice and realize that the restricted class refers to licensed professionals and the principle is that handwriting analysis is legitimate.
(C) He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
--Out of scope, No evidence cited by Gregory.
(D) He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
--Sasha is not self-contradictory at all so not possible.
(E) He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
--at the core it is same as D. Not possible.
Correct answer is B
Hope it helps! Please give kudos if you liked the explanation.
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?
At first glance, all the answers look wrong! but we need to find one let's do it.
Sasha's argument is pretty clear: saying that handwriting analysis should be banned as courtroom evidence because
handwriting analysts exaggerate the reliability of the analysis.
In response Gregory accepts the claim to some extent but then cite the reason behind it. He says due to unavailability of licensing standards & professional boards, analysts make exaggerating claims. When such boards and standards will be available this would not be the case.
(A) He ignores evidence introduced as support for Sasha’s recommendation.
--Out of scope, No evidence cited by Sasha.
(B)He defends a principle by restricting the class to which it is to be applied.
-- Correct answer. Though Gregory does not defend the argument, you should review this choice and realize that the restricted class refers to licensed professionals and the principle is that handwriting analysis is legitimate.
(C) He abstracts a general principle from specific evidence.
--Out of scope, No evidence cited by Gregory.
(D) He identifies a self-contradictory statement in Sasha’s argument.
--Sasha is not self-contradictory at all so not possible.
(E) He shows that Sasha’s argument itself manifests the undesirable characteristic that it condemns.
--at the core it is same as D. Not possible.
Correct answer is B
Hope it helps! Please give kudos if you liked the explanation.
