Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character

Question

Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining people’s handwriting. For example, a strong cross on the “t” is supposed to denote enthusiasm. Obviously, however, with practice and perseverance people can alter their handwriting to include this feature. So it seems that graphologists must hold that permanent character traits can be changed.

The argument against graphology proceeds by

(A) citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question

(B) demonstrating that an apparently controversial and interesting claim is really just a platitude

(C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used

(D) showing that proponents of the view have no theoretical justification for the view

(E) attacking a technique by arguing that what the technique is supposed to detect can be detected quite readily without it

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes.  The passage implies that graphologists claim that a strong cross on the “t” denotes the  permanent  character trait, enthusiasm. The passage then states the strong cross on the “t” can be changed and therefore that the character trait enthusiasm can be changed. However, this directly contradicts the assumption that enthusiasm is a  permanent  character trait. Hence, the graphologists’ claim leads to the absurd consequence that a character trait can be simultaneously permanent and not permanent.

(B) No. The argument does not show that the claim is a platitude (a trite remark).

(C) No. There is no discussion of whether the people being analyzed by the graphologists are aware that they are being analyzed. Rather the argument points out that people can intentionally change “ permanent character traits, ” regardless of their reason for doing so.

(D) No. The passage merely presents one counterexample.

(E) No. The passage is arguing that graphology is invalid, not superfluous.

dave13 · Answer

If graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining people’s handwriting, and on the other hand with practice and perseverance people can alter their handwriting to include this feature. these two things contradict each other and look like absurd

Hence this makes me believe that correct answer choice is A

Helium · Answer

Can someone explain in detail the OA?

Posted from my mobile device

dave13 · Answer

Harshgmat say someone tells you - " by your handwriting I can determine you character"

And your reaction is like this " what ?

, Are you serious? are you gmat student or what? its total nonsence i dont beleive you

" . That person says: "why man ?

proove it

" So your asnwer: " you know what i know a person who changed his handwriting through practice and perseverance and included this feature i.e. a strong cross on the “t” which is supposed to denote enthusiasm

that means an individual persistent and patient, yet not enthusiastic, can put a strong cross on the “t" hence, incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question !

Helium · Answer

Thanks dave13.

Why choice c) is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

dave13 · Answer

Harshgmat

C is too extreme. it mentions word "NEVER", which you cant be sure of. it is nowhere mentioned NEVER hence we dont know.

(C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can  never   be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Pre-thinking:

The graphologists make a claim. The author of the passage opposes the claim by citing a line of reasoning which leads to a contradictory conclusion (So it seems that graphologists must hold that  permanent  character traits  can be changed ).

Let us examine the answer options:

(A) citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question  Correct. The author's reasoning leads to what appears to be a paradox, which can be considered an "absurd consequence".

(B) demonstrating that an apparently controversial and interesting claim is really just a platitude  Incorrect. For this option to hold, the author must argue that the claim being made has been made repeatedly and, hence, is uninteresting. The author does not claim that that the argument is uninteresting, nor that it has been made many times.

(C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used  This requires some consideration. In the author's reasoning, are the people changing their handwriting "with practice and perseverance" because they  know  that their handwriting is being analyzed? We cannot be sure. Also, the use of the word "never" is a problem because the author is not making any generalized statement but only talking about the particular case of handwriting being used to determine permanent character traits. On the whole, this option has a few problems. Incorrect.

(D) showing that proponents of the view have no theoretical justification for the view  Incorrect. The author does not question the theoretical concepts underlying the graphologists claim in this passage.

(E) attacking a technique by arguing that what the technique is supposed to detect can be detected quite readily without it  Incorrect. The author is questioning the validity and effectiveness of the technique itself and not doubting its usefulness due to other techniques being available.

Hope this helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards