#20 - Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

This unusual stimulus involves sarcasm. Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by handwriting analysis, and the stimulus asserts that people can obviously change alter their handwriting styles, and then sarcastically concludes that graphologists must believe that permanent character traits can be changed. The strongly implied conclusion is that it is absurd for graphologists to believe that handwriting demonstrates character traits.

The reasoning in the stimulus is actually less than convincing, because the attack on the graphologists is a bit of a straw-man attack, and because the stimulus acts as if asserting that something is “obvious” constitutes supplying actual evidence.

You are asked to describe the method of reasoning, so you should focus on the fact that the argument attempts to paint the graphologist’ claims as absurd.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The argument cites apparently incontestable evidence (“obviously”) that leads to absurd consequences when combined with the view it attributes to graphologists.

Answer choice (B): The argument does not demonstrate anything. Demonstrating something would involve the use of actual proof rather than appeals to what some person asserts is “obvious.” Furthermore, there is no indication in the stimulus that the graphologists’ view is “controversial,” or that enough people assert the graphologists’ view that it could be a cliché belief. This choice is wrong.

Answer choice (C): The argument asserts that “fooling” the test is possible through “practice and perseverance.” Practice takes time, and perseverance demands commitment, so it does not make sense to believe that the argument argues that 100% of the time, simple awareness would allow people to “fool” the test. This choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The argument merely asserts that something is “obvious,” and does not “show” anything about the view in question. Furthermore, the argument depends on an alleged practical consideration, not a theoretical consideration, so this choice is wrong. It is possible that theoretically graphology has points, but in practice graphology does not work well. The argument focuses on practice.

Answer choice (E): The argument does not focus on whether graphology is needed; instead, the argument questions whether graphology produces reliable analysis results in the first place.

[BigBadDog]

I'm really struggling with this question. I read through the explanations but am not sure why (D) is incorrect.

Here is what I am thinking as I do the question:

Graphologists claim one thing, but someone could theoretically practice and ruin their field of study. Thus, if the theory behind the idea is incorrect, and people really do change their writing, the idea falls apart.

I thus chose answer choice (D). If the theory behind the idea is wrong, doesn't that show that the proponents have no theoretical justification for that view?

Also, I can think of times on the LSAt where logical reasoning as seen in this question is taken to be "showing" even if it is asserting, so the above explanation seems rather week. The author does "show," through logic.

What am I missing here?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi BigBadDog!

This is definitely a tricky question! As the above explanation notes, the stimulus argument involves the use of sarcasm which is unusual on the LSAT.

Let's work through your analysis of the argument. I think you started off great: "Graphologists claim one thing, but someone could theoretically practice and ruin their field of study." Yup. I agree. I think you ran into a little bit of trouble, however, with the next part. The author does not show that the theory behind the graphologists' idea is incorrect. In fact, the author does not really address the theoretical basis of the graphologists' claim at all. The author actually puts forth his own theory (that people can change their handwriting with practice) in an attempt to point out the absurdity of the graphologists' claim. But the author gives us no reasons to support his assertion that people can alter their handwriting and graphologists might argue that people cannot change their handwriting. So we don't get an attack that focuses specifically on the theoretical justification for the graphologists' claim.

Furthermore, answer choice (D) is too strong. The author doesn't show that graphologists have NO theoretical justification for their view. If anything, he is only pointing out that their view may not hold 100% of the time. That's not the same as saying there is no theoretical justification for it, just that the system could be gamed. Read the graphologists' claim carefully. They merely claim that is it possible to detect permanent character traits through handwriting, not that it is a 100% accurate analysis.

Think of a similar case: lie detectors. People can practice and learn techniques to "pass" lie detector tests even when they are lying. Does that mean the theory behind lie detector tests (that the act of lying produces measurable physiological responses) has NO justification? Nope. Just means that lie detector tests are not infallible at detecting lying.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[KelseyWoods]

Hi BigBadDog!

This is definitely a tricky question! As the above explanation notes, the stimulus argument involves the use of sarcasm which is unusual on the LSAT.

Let's work through your analysis of the argument. I think you started off great: "Graphologists claim one thing, but someone could theoretically practice and ruin their field of study." Yup. I agree. I think you ran into a little bit of trouble, however, with the next part. The author does not show that the theory behind the graphologists' idea is incorrect. In fact, the author does not really address the theoretical basis of the graphologists' claim at all. The author actually puts forth his own theory (that people can change their handwriting with practice) in an attempt to point out the absurdity of the graphologists' claim. But the author gives us no reasons to support his assertion that people can alter their handwriting and graphologists might argue that people cannot change their handwriting. So we don't get an attack that focuses specifically on the theoretical justification for the graphologists' claim.

Furthermore, answer choice (D) is too strong. The author doesn't show that graphologists have NO theoretical justification for their view. If anything, he is only pointing out that their view may not hold 100% of the time. That's not the same as saying there is no theoretical justification for it, just that the system could be gamed. Read the graphologists' claim carefully. They merely claim that is it possible to detect permanent character traits through handwriting, not that it is a 100% accurate analysis.

Think of a similar case: lie detectors. People can practice and learn techniques to "pass" lie detector tests even when they are lying. Does that mean the theory behind lie detector tests (that the act of lying produces measurable physiological responses) has NO justification? Nope. Just means that lie detector tests are not infallible at detecting lying.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[whardy21]

I pinned my answer choices down to choices A and E. Ultimately I chose E. I did not understand A. That is the reason I did not go with that choice. What incontestable evidence are they referring to? In addition, please shed some light on why answer choice E is wrong as well.

[Adam Tyson]

This gives me the opportunity to share some advice that many people have a hard time accepting, whardy21, and that is that NOT understanding an answer is NEVER a good reason to reject it. Just the opposite, actually - if you don't understand an answer, then you don't know why it's wrong, and you must therefore keep it as a contender! If the other four answers are clearly wrong, then the remaining answer that you cannot confidently eliminate because you don't entirely understand it must be the correct answer! After all, we are supposed to pick the BEST answer of the five choices given, and "I don't get it" is better than "that can't be it"!

Let's look at why E is a bad answer. Since this is a Method of Reasoning question, and that is in the Prove Family of questions along with Must Be True questions and others, I'll do it be using a version of the Fact Testtm and comparing each essential element of the answer to the information in the stimulus. If the answer describes ANYTHING that did not happen in the stimulus, then it must be a wrong answer, because it would violate that test.

First part of the answer: "attacking a technique". Did the author attack a technique? I'm not seeing it, not explicitly anyway. He just says "well, if you believe that, you must also believe this". I'm not sure this qualifies as an "attack", but perhaps it is an implied attack through the use of sarcasm. I already don't like this answer, but I'll keep going.

"By arguing that what the technique is supposed to detect can be detected quite readily without it." Where did the author say anything like that? Does the stimulus say anything about there being another way to detect personality traits? Does it suggest there is anything that can be done "quite readily" (meaning easily, without trouble or problems)? Nope - this is a complete violation of the Fact Test. This describes something that simply did not happen in the stimulus, and therefore this answer has to be discarded. It's junk!

Now, if A is all that's left, and you're confused by it, that's okay! Pick it, since it is the only remaining contender!

For the sake of clarity, though, let's apply the Fact Test like a checklist to answer A. "Citing apparently incontestable evidence." - where did the author tell us about something that is a given truth, not subject to being discredited? He did that in his third sentence, beginning with the word "obviously." That sentence tells us that it is obvious that people can, with practice, change their handwriting, and does so in a way that the author thinks is incontestable.

"That leads to absurd consequences." What are those consequences? The last bit of the last sentence: "permanent character traits can be changed." That's a nonsense statement, internally contradictory, because if something is permanent then it cannot be changed, and if it can be changed it is not permanent!

"When conjoined with the view in question." In other words, if you believe that (about graphology), then you must also believe this (about changing something permanent).

Step by step, fact by fact, answer A is describing exactly what happened in the stimulus! It may not be obvious to us at first, but that's a reason to KEEP it, not a reason to reject it. Embrace the unknown! Be at peace with your confusion, for it leads to correct answers! A loser answer is a loser only when you KNOW it is wrong, because you know WHY it is wrong. Everything else is worth keeping around to see if it might be the best answer. That's an uncomfortable place to be on a test this important, but it's where you need to be ready to go if you want to keep driving that score upwards.

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

Please see my questions below in purple.

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)


Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The argument cites apparently incontestable evidence (“obviously”) that leads to absurd consequences when combined with the view it attributes to graphologists.

How is this incontestable evidence? I didn't choose A because the author doesn't provide any evidence other than just saying people can alter their handwriting

Answer choice (B): The argument does not demonstrate anything. Demonstrating something would involve the use of actual proof rather than appeals to what some person asserts is “obvious.” Furthermore, there is no indication in the stimulus that the graphologists’ view is “controversial,” or that enough people assert the graphologists’ view that it could be a cliché belief. This choice is wrong.

What does a platitude mean in this context?

Answer choice (C): The argument asserts that “fooling” the test is possible through “practice and perseverance.” Practice takes time, and perseverance demands commitment, so it does not make sense to believe that the argument argues that 100% of the time, simple awareness would allow people to “fool” the test. This choice is incorrect.

Would this answer choice be correct if it said, "arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be 100% effective when the people analyzed know it is being used".

Thanks!

[alexis.la]

Hey! I got this question right. But sometimes I worry that I'm not technical enough when answering questions. All of the administrators responses here are formal, and reference the theory behind a correct/incorrect answer choice.

After reading the stimulus and conclusion I literally thought "that's ridiculous/a stretch. haha". Answer choice A) then used the words "absurd consequence" and so my gut told me that it was correct right away.

In this question, my pre-phase was my natural reaction. In that way I personalized the argument and the correct answer reflected my thought. BUT is it dangerous to trust my gut reaction too much? Should I try be more theoretical about it?

If I ignore my instinct I end up overthinking answers, trying to see their merit and shortcomings. Once I do that, it's easy to 'convince' myself of a wrong answer. In that regard I guess it's better to stick to my instinct? What do you think

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi Alexis,
Thank you for your question. Some of the wrong answers are designed to get you to overthink. Trusting your gut is a result of getting a feel for the LR section. The more you do you will find your gut guiding you more and more to the correct answer.
I hope this helps.
Bob

[wisnain]

Hi, I'm confused about the use of certain words. I assume that "demonstrating" something would obviously involve some kind of scientific, statistical, or experimental proof, and "showing" something would also require similar action.

But what about “evidence” like in (A)? I hesitated because it contained a word that, to me, would require factual proof. Can a mere argument (“with practice and perseverance, people can alter~”) be cited as “evidence”? Or is the sentence actually a factual proof that I didn’t catch?