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

Already read the passage before (https://gmatclub.com/forum/sasha-handwr ... l#p2491956), so we can dive right in, but this CR is a lot easier, I daresay, given the more 'natural' English 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.

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


(A) Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person’s character.
Irrelevant as a counter response. We need something to attack G's claim or evidence or something.

(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.
Not a good counter. This statement still accepts that a HTP could identify two samples of different handwriting by the same person.

(C) A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
But the LB would still grant some, perhaps many, licences to OTHER responsible handwriting analysts, right?

(D) The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
You might end up here through process of elimination, but let's just figure this out. If the ONLY analysts who claim that HA is reliable are themselves IRRESPONSIBLE the whole validity of them providing courtroom evidence gets thrown out. It basically cuts off even the super elite analysts, who get licenses from an oversight board, from being considered as courtroom worthy.

(E) The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
So, we still have a small, select group of HA going about their business. Guess there will be a lot of money in it for them. This is not an argument against reliability of HA in courtrooms.

5 Verbal tips from a V48 GMAT Tutor