Graphologists claim it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining handwriting. Obviously, people can alter their handwriting with practice. So the graphologists must hold that permanent character traits can be changed.
The argument proceeds by:
(A) citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question.
(A) says that the argument cites incontestable evidence - "obviously, with practice people can alter their handwriting" to demonstrate that when coupled with the premise that graphologists can detect permanent character traits by looking at the handwriting, it leads to an absurd conclusion that permanent character trains can be changed. Permanent traits cannot change by definition, hence the absurd result.
(C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used
(C) says that handwriting analysis is ineffective when people whose handwriting is analyzed are aware of it. The author never says people alter their handwriting only in response to the analysis, rather he is arguing that one can change their handwriting to include certain features that denote certain character traits, but then graphologists would conclude that their permanent character traits have changed as well, which sounds absurd.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
AddisonPattonAugust 19, 2019
That helps. Thank you!
hfatima1June 9, 2020
Would c also be wrong because the quanitifer never is too strong?
hfatima1June 9, 2020
Never mind, I see the answer in a previous thread .
