The conclusion of the argument is: "So it seems that graphologists must hold that permanent character traits can be changed." Why? We are told that graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining people's handwriting. But, the argument then adds that "with practice and perseverance people can alter their handwriting to include" specific features denoting character traits.
Thus, by giving us the evidence that "with practice and perseverance people can alter their handwriting to include" specific features denoting character traits, it essentially means that these "PERMANENT" character traits can be changed--leading us to an absurd consequence, i.e. the ability to change PERMANENT character traits.
So, answer choice (A), "citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences" (i.e. people being able to change their handwriting to indicate different "permanent" character traits) when conjoined with the view in question (i.e. the graphologists' claim) is correct.
In regards to answer choice (D), we have never discussed the idea of theoretical justification in the argument. Thus, we know nothing of whether graphologists do or do not have theoretical justification for their view. Remember, the limit of our knowledge on each question can be found within the boundaries of the stimulus. If the stimulus does not mention it, then we know nothing about it. Thus, answer choice (D) is incorrect.
Hope that helped! Please let us know if you have any questions.
Ashley-TienJune 22, 2018
Why is C incorrect?
AnitaJune 27, 2018
@Ashley-Tien We don't know in this circumstance whether the people changing their handwriting do know they're being analyzed, or if they're changing it for some other reason (maybe they just think writing a certain way is prettier.) We also don't know from the prompt that handwriting analysis can NEVER be correct, only that it has some flaws.
