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 her 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 licences 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.

Some Kudos would be nice!
_________________

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

Argument option are kind of flawed. (A), (B), and ,(E) are. Thus left with (C), and (D). (c) says licensing board will not give licenses to some analysist which weakens the argument. And (D), says that only irresponsible analysist are left, whereas the argument says in the premise that the board will deter them from making any irresponsible claims about their analysis claims.

The reasoning that I came to was that since all analysts who claim that it is reliable evidence are irresponsible, therefore the board, who is there to provide licenses to that very notion, in its entirety is irresponsible, therefore discrediting Gregory's argument.

D and E both works, however the stem says
the strongest counter to Gregory’s response?

D is stronger than E, hence D
_________________

Can someone perhaps explain D) again? I still think it's C), but don't quite understand the responses.
_________________

CEdward

Sasha wants to ban handwriting analysts from court because they are unreliable. Gregory agrees for now, but thinks that once we have a board to screen these analysts, there won't be a problem. We want to help Sasha push back against this, so we need to show that even with such a board, handwriting analysis in court will still be problematic.

D) does just what we want. It basically says that only irresponsible analysts think this kind of evidence is any good. In other words, there's no way to weed out the bad ones and bring in only reliable witnesses, as Gregory wants to do, because responsible handwriting analysts who can show evidence of someone's character through their handwriting simply don't exist. It would be like trying to find "real" wizards if only phonies ever claimed to be wizards.

Meanwhile, C) is just saying that the board might also deny people for other reasons. But Sasha isn't trying to set up this board in the first place; she doesn't want to use these analysts at all. So while this attacks the idea of using a board, it does so from a different direction. It says that the board might not be fair, but that's not what Sasha is trying to do.
_________________

hero_with_1000_faces

Be careful about that "stronger" reasoning. We should generally have 4 definitively wrong answers and 1 right one; otherwise, the right answer can be seen as subjective and unclear. In this case, E doesn't help Sasha at all. Maybe it's good to have this small group of qualified people. As long as responsible analysts exist, then maybe Gregory's plan is a valid one.
_________________