lsat-23-4-26

entia

Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of a person’s character, handwriting analysis 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.

/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 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.

这样的题我错了两次了，就是因为答案有个irresponsible或 responsible。我认为说主语是irresponsible还是responsible不能证明他的任意一个决定或者动作是错误的。 是不是？？？ 迷糊了？？

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-19 11:09:22编辑过]

hedonism555

D= only one anaylst claims the relability of handwriting and others dont claim that. So, if the only one is irresponsible, the whole legitimacy of handwriting analysis will be weakened.

chelseayang

"我认为说主语是irresponsible还是responsible不能证明他的任意一个决定或者动作是错误的。 是不是？"

不太理解你的问题是什么意思

"D) The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character are irresponsible'--------------任何宣称"handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person’s character"的分析者是irresponsible

namely, D counters Gregory by saying that no responsible analysts would claim that handwring provides reliable evidence of a person's character. if one claims so, he must be irresponsible. The licensing system would be rendered useless.

釜底抽薪的驳斥

entia

irresponsible. 斑竹,我问的问题是,说一个人有没有责任感,难道就说这个人做的事情都不可能是对的么??? ,我想一个没有责任感的人也有作对事情的可能性把.

chelseayang

"irresponsible. 斑竹,我问的问题是,说一个人有没有责任感,难道就说这个人做的事情都不可能是对的么??? ,我想一个没有责任感的人也有作对事情的可能性把."--------it indeed is possible.

However, you would not disagree that an irresponsible analyst is more likely to make mistakes than a responsible one.Otherwise, how does a responsible person distinguish himself from an irresponsible person?  this is engough to counter George's view.

Bensontuo

entia 发表于 2004-12-19 10:58
Sasha: Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of a person’s character, handwrit ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning -> Support A by weaken B

Core of the argument:

S: H.A should be banned, since H.A as W exaggerate the reliability of the analyses.

G: I agree H.A as evidence is problematic However, If the problem exists --->no licensing board to set professional standards ---> deter irresponsible analyst from market exaggerated claim.

If we do have licensing board , H.A will be legitimate.

First one all, this is also the question type of point at issue. Apparently, Sasha thinks HW should be Banned due to HW is not reliable enough; however, G does think that it is the methodology of harnessing HW be problematic relies on no establishment of the licensed board to deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims. and G believes that the necessary condition of the problem happened could serve as the sufficient condition by negation for leading to solving that problem.

Secondly, to best support Sasha, what we want to do is to question the sufficiency of that sufficient condition by saying that even though it is necessary if problem exist, but solving the problem does not sufficient enough to ensure it must be 100% reliable. or, alternatively, what we also can do is to look for if there are any other conditions might also be occurred as to prevent from either the problem be solved or other problem be created after the original problem be solved.

If licensed team ---> No problem ---> legitimate ---> responsible ---> should not be banned.

If Should be banned ---> irresponsible ---> no legitimate ---> problem ---> no licensed team.

( Apparently, we should destroy the logic chain between 1. Legitimate ---> Responsible and 2. Irresponsible ---> No legitimate )

Let us see the answers.

A. it does not mean the core problems mentioned by G can't be overcame.

B. It does not change the fact that the licensed team can still make HA legitimate.

C. Refuse to grant licenses to some responsible hw does not mean it the legitimated HA won't be responsible.

D. If HA is reliable ---> it must be true that people provided are irresponsible

This is a great concept.

What Sasha worries the most is that the reliable evidence is " exaggerated " . Meanwhile, Gregory said if with a
board, it could be legitimate, and if it could be legitimate, it wont be irresponsible, and if it wont be irresponsible, it should not be banned. However, without having the reliable evidence be exaggerated does not mean all of the evidence are reliable.

Thinking in this way, if be responsible, HA would not provides reliable evidence. And if not provide reliable evidence, why should not we still ban HA ?

Which is to say, the problem is sufficient enough to guarantee whether the person is responsible or not, but it does not sufficient to guarantee all of the evidence submitted from the responsible person are reliable.