Critical Reasoning

Graphologists claim that it is possible to detect permanent character traits by examining people's handwriting. For example, a strong cross on the "t" is supposed to denote enthusiasm. Obviously, however, with practice and perseverance people can alter their handwriting to include this feature. So it seems that graphologists must hold that permanent character traits can be changed.

The argument against graphology proceeds by

(A) citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question

(B) demonstrating that an apparently controversial and interesting claim is really just a platitude

(C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used

(D) showing that proponents of the view have no theoretical justification for the view

(E) attacking a technique by arguing that what the technique is supposed to detect can be detected quite readily without it


OA

Removed OA as per requested .... Give it a shot .

A and B came to mind. B is out since the claim is not controversial. I keep A

I would choose C.

I think A is right. My first instinct was to go with C too, but then I noticed the phrasing of the question. The general argument is that analysis is not effective when those being analyzed are aware of the analysis. But the question is not asking for a gist of what the argument is, but rather how the argument is presented. It's not "The argument made against graphology is..", but "The argument made against graphology proceeds by.."

So if you look at it from that perspective, then C does not actually answer the question. A, on the other hand, fits well. First, the use of "obviously" makes the evidence that practice can alter handwriting appear incontrovertible. There is no actual research or citation to the evidence, just the apparent incontestability because of phrasing. Then, by saying that graphologists must hold that character traits can be changed, you bring the evidence together with the original claim that they can detect permanent character traits using handwriting, leading to an a bit of a contradiction. If the character traits can be changed, then how can they be permanent, and how can graphologists put any real stock in their analysis?

The phrasing in the question makes all the difference here, and is very easy to miss.

The correct answer is definitely [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] and carl's reasoning (above post) is perfect.

Argh. This section of the test is looking bleak for me.

SarahLiz wrote:Argh. This section of the test is looking bleak for me.

Hey, this is a method of argument question, which are very rare on the GMAT. You probably just haven't had much practice with this particular question type.