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.
Jul 0811:30 AM EDT
-01:30 PM EDT
An interactive 2-hour class by Aditya Kumar to Establish clear structures & guidelines to enhance your decision-making and improve your speed and accuracy in Algebra.
Jul 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! - Jul 01
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today. - Jul 08
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
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. 
Jul 0809:30 AM EDT
-10:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.- Jul 08
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Did you know that there are test accommodations available for the GMAT exam? Not enough people do! In this informative video, Jason Northrup, GMAC’s Senior Manager for Testing Accommodations, joins GMAT Ninja founder Charles Bibilos - Jul 09
11:00 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the M7 MBA Spotlight Series, featuring MIT Sloan School of Management! This video is part of GMAT Club’s exclusive MBA Spotlight event, where top business schools meet prospective applicants like you. - Jul 10
11:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation. 
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.- Jul 15
08:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
09 Apr 2020, 03:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:23) correct
56%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 754
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.
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.
(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.
(C) A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
(D) The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
(E) The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
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.
(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.
(C) A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability.
(D) The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible.
(E) The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.
Updated on: 14 Dec 2022, 22:13
Originally posted by GmatKnightTutor on 09 Apr 2020, 04:32.
Last edited by GmatKnightTutor on 14 Dec 2022, 22:13, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by GmatKnightTutor on 14 Dec 2022, 22:13, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
General Discussion
12 Apr 2020, 06:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. Out of scope.
B. Which is not denied by G. G says such people must be recruited by a board.
C. So it could be. But as long as responsible analysts are recruited, it is ok to reject a few responsible analysts.
D. G says as long as a board approves handwriting analysts, they can provide reliable analysis of a persons’ character. This option refutes it properly.
E. Yes, but this very small number of analysts can be recruited by the board.
So D.
Posted from my mobile device
B. Which is not denied by G. G says such people must be recruited by a board.
C. So it could be. But as long as responsible analysts are recruited, it is ok to reject a few responsible analysts.
D. G says as long as a board approves handwriting analysts, they can provide reliable analysis of a persons’ character. This option refutes it properly.
E. Yes, but this very small number of analysts can be recruited by the board.
So D.
Posted from my mobile device
