Last visit was: 08 Jul 2025, 10:33 It is currently 08 Jul 2025, 10:33
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 8 July 2025
Posts: 102,593
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 97,451
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,593
Kudos: 739,477
 [27]
Kudos
Add Kudos
27
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GmatKnightTutor
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 5,002
Own Kudos:
1,522
 [7]
Given Kudos: 18
Posts: 5,002
Kudos: 1,522
 [7]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
avatar
Yellkrishna
Joined: 12 Dec 2019
Last visit: 21 Apr 2021
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 53
Kudos: 41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
lakshya14
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 27 Jul 2022
Posts: 362
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 529
Posts: 362
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.

 
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.­
avatar
Villiavello
Joined: 06 Sep 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2021
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 6
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
hero_with_1000_faces
Joined: 02 Jan 2016
Last visit: 17 Mar 2025
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 314
Status:Studying 4Gmat
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 590 Q37 V33
GPA: 4
WE:Law (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 590 Q37 V33
Posts: 361
Kudos: 142
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D and E both works, however the stem says
the strongest counter to Gregory’s response?

D is stronger than E, hence D
User avatar
CEdward
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,212
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,212
Kudos: 247
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone perhaps explain D) again? I still think it's C), but don't quite understand the responses.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 06 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,945
Own Kudos:
8,380
 [3]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,945
Kudos: 8,380
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 06 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,945
Own Kudos:
8,380
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,945
Kudos: 8,380
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Prakruti_Patil
Joined: 24 May 2023
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 343
Posts: 101
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey, I'm still struggling a bit here, while I got the right answer by eliminating 4 wrongs -- still for D -- why can't a licensing board be trusted to weed out irresponsible members, and still be established to give licenses to those deserving..
GmatKnightTutor
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
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 06 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,945
Own Kudos:
8,380
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,945
Kudos: 8,380
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D is telling us that there are no responsible analysts to find. Or at least, if only irresponsible analysts claim that handwriting analysis is reliable, then all we'd have left would be responsible analysts who admit that their work is not reliable! Either way, there would be no reliable analysis available. Either all the workers are irresponsible, or some are responsible but of little value! With D in place, there's no way for handwriting analysis to be a legitimate tool, as Gregory claims.
Prakruti_Patil
Hey, I'm still struggling a bit here, while I got the right answer by eliminating 4 wrongs -- still for D -- why can't a licensing board be trusted to weed out irresponsible members, and still be established to give licenses to those deserving..
GmatKnightTutor
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
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts