PrepTest 103

[lcid:3508] Prep Test 103 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Sasha: Handwriting analysis should Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed/Flawed

Question Type

Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

S: Handwriting analysts exaggerate on the stand, so this analysis should be banned in court. G: Right now, sure, but that’s because there’s no licensing board. Once there is, handwriting analysis will be useful for character assessments.

Answer Anticipation

We’re looking for a counter that Sasha can make to Gregory’s rebuttal of her argument, so we’re trying to weaken his response. That said, the correct answer will also almost certainly support her initial contention that handwriting analysis shouldn’t be allowed in courts as evidence of someone’s character, so let’s keep that in mind! As it stands, both speakers agree that handwriting analysts exaggerate their evidence on the stand. Gregory, though, believes that this can be fixed by creating a licensing board, thus preventing unlicensed individuals from testifying. However, Gregory doesn’t present any evidence that such a licensing board would do so! Maybe they’d allow anyone who pays a fee to become licensed, and they would still exaggerate. Or maybe the standards they set wouldn’t actually prevent anyone from exaggerating on the stand, since judgments on character might have an inherently subjective element to them. Anything that suggests the licensing board wouldn’t result in accurate testimony by even licensed handwriting analysts will serve to undermine George’s rebuttal to her argument.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Courts routinely use means Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    There being other means of assessing character doesn’t mean that handwriting analysis can’t work. Since the debate is over whether it should be admitted as testimony, it doesn’t matter if it’s the only way to assess character, just that it’s an accurate way.
  2. B
    Many people can provide Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The licensing board could ensure that such highly trained professionals are the only ones licensed, so this doesn’t serve to counter Gregory’s argument.
  3. C
    A licensing board would Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    To rebut Gregory’s argument, it would need to be shown that some irresponsible analysts would be licensed and then offer inaccurate testimony. If some responsible analysts are cut, but also no irresponsible ones are admitted, the licensing board could still ensure accuracy in testimony.
  4. D
    The only handwriting analysts Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    If responsible handwriting experts won’t claim that their analysis provides reliable evidence of character, then there’s no way to get reliable people licensed and into the courtroom. This answer essentially says that even the experts think this stuff shouldn’t be offered as testimony, weakening Gregory’s call for a board.
  5. E
    The number of handwriting Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Even if it’s very small, if they exist, then their testimony might be valuable in a courtroom, so this answer doesn’t rebut Gregory’s argument.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Video 1 reply

    Started by Christina81

View all discussions Start a discussion