reasoning2 求解释

lihaolan

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 tha 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 analysts form making exaggerated claims. When such a board is established, however, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.
26. 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 themas having been written by the same person.
　　（C） A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for resasons 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.
答案是D求解释

玛莎丁丁

S and G both agreed that handwriting used as character evidence in court room could be problematic. What they disagreed is that whether it could be made legitimate by setting up a licensing board of professional analysts. To be more detailed, S thinks analysts make irresponsible exaggeration. G thinks a licensing board will deter the irresponsible ones.
The question asks us to support S and counter G.

A is out of scope. We don't care whether there's other tools used by the court.
B has somthing to do with professioinal analysts but it doesn't harm G's claim anyway.
C suggests the board will take other factors into account when deciding what analysts to license. still out of scope.
D is the correct answer. It says that the only supporters of G's claim fails to meet the criteria of being licensed. In that case, no qualified analysts would exist to make the board work. it supports S' suggestion of banning handwriting and harms D's claim directly.
E tells us the quallified number is small, but still exists. It actually supports G.

Hope it helps=)

s_dUSA

I do have a problem here.
Actually I saw the above explanation before, is it from KAPLAN or something? Maybe the reason that they are the same is because this kind of explanation is absolutely right.

My problem is: why the board has to be made up of supporters? It can also consist of some neutral third parties or even some opponents (this is treasonable, we need advice from them).

Thanks for your help!

玛莎丁丁

Oh dear, I couldn't tell you how flattered I am when you told me my explanation looks like Kaplan! You just lightened my day up haha. Well, I think you really made a Great point by taking neutral and opponents into account. However, I think we need to distinguish it from the Congress Room situation, where supporters, opponents and other social organizations discuss whether a law should be passed or modified. We are asked to set a licensing board whose members have a preliminary belief that handwriting analysis could be used in court room as evidence. They are not sitting there discussing whether handwriting is a legitimate evidence, rather they are to set standards for qualified analysis, which means as long as the analysis meets the standards it could be regarded as legitimate evidence in the court. Did I make it clear? You really made a great question!  =]

s_dUSA

I still don't think your reasoning makes so much sense, because even making standard needs to hear some negative opinions

And when we set up a standard for something, the best experts should be neutral parties!

s_dUSA

Actually, I found an American guy's explanation which is much more convincing than yours and KAPLAN's (your reasoning is almost the same as KAPLAN'S, but that doesn't make any sense to me)

Here it is and I quote

"Let's look at (D) in-depth:

The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person's character are irresponsible.

Let's start with the handwriting analysts -- let's not think about the analysts in terms of the board, but rather in terms of those who would testify in a trial.

Are handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence the only handwriting analysts who would testify in a trial? I'm going to try to encourage you to think yes, though I know it's not 100% perfect (strengthen and weaken answers often aren't designed to be).

I think it's actually a much smaller leap than we might originally think. Consider what one does before testifying at a trial -- one promises to tell the truth -- which is not terribly different from claiming to be reliable (particularly in this context, because, if the analysts didn't think they were reliable, but testified nonetheless, it would be very difficult for them to tell the truth).

Okay, so let's imagine that only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence testify at trials...

We're actually told in this answer, in an indirect way, that every single one of these analysts is irresponsible. If that's true, Gregory's plan to set up the court wouldn't work -- they wouldn't be able to find the people to make licensed practitioners.

Is this answer perfect? Of course not. One could argue this board would "rehabilitate" the irresponsible analysts, so that they could provide legitimate testimony. But it can then be countered that then these analysts would no longer be irresponsible. But by this point, it should be clear that (D) puts Gregory's point that the lack of a board is the "only" reason that the current state is problematic into serious question."

I hope this helps you because it totally makes sense to me!

玛莎丁丁

Hi s_dUSA! I really appreciate it that you quoted this explanation. Heated discussion helps us to think from more perspectives and reflect on our own reasoning

I think the explanation you found makes sense to some extent. (At least it provides me another way to think this question----from witness character and court oath angle) But I'm not sure if it's safe for us to go that far. One can attacks it by saying: a reliable analyst could testify in the court without betraying his own belief, like by claiming in some circumstances a person with certain characteristics writes with a certain style, but denying the handwriting could be used as "reliable evidence". (It's an expert witness' job to make claims about what he saw or thought, from an expert opinion, but a lawyer's job to argue a case on this basis.) (And Notice that D says "provides reliable evidence of a person's character ") The analyst could just give a expert opinion and nothing more .

I think focusing on the keywords "irresponsible" and "setting professional standards" helps to figure the key logic chain better. Like I said, it's not a discussion about whether we should make handwriting analysis a legitimate evidence in court, but a discussion originated from a shared belief that it SHOULD be made legitimate, and then what the standards? At least, I can't imagine someone talking about criteria of evidence when he believes that:  even if the evidence meets the standard it's still illegitimate. then what's the point of making a standard?

I don't know if I've made it clearer this time. Correct me if you still find it unreasonable.

s_dUSA

Here is the deal:

Think a simple example about standard: if you buy some apples in a fruit store, and the seller told you it is 5 pounds without weighing it, you sure won't agree with it, then you fight back and say I think it is 3 pounds. And mormally, what are you folks gonna do to solve this problem? Use a weight, that makes perfect sense. Why do you trust the wreight? Because it is neutral, it is not biased against any parties!

That is the thing, when we set up a standard, we need neutral third parties without any intrerest in it like a heartless weight, if you let the proponent formulate the standard, who the hell is gonna believe it? I am sure you won't buy it either, because they are absolutely biased!

And I do believe the explanantion from the American dude making sense, because:
Think in this way: the second speaker said that if this problem is solved, this tool can be used (meaning he does believe that there is some responsible experts who beleiveing in it will be chosen)

If none of qualified experts exist , even though there is a standard, no one can be chosen because no one is qualified!

And just like D said, you want responsible and believeing expert, but sorry, none of such experts exist!

s_dUSA

Thank you folks for everything!

This is a really tough question! I began to figure it out after these discussion.