Question

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

Short answer

Choice (A) is correct, as it uses evidence to show an absurd contradiction.

Step-by-step solution

Analyze the Argument's Claim

The argument claims that if handwriting can indicate permanent traits (as graphologists suggest), but people can change their handwriting, then these permanent traits must be changeable. However, permanent traits by definition should not change, creating a contradiction.

Identify the Form of Reasoning

The argument is designed to show a contradiction or absurdity. It takes the belief that handwriting reveals permanent traits and points out that if people can change their handwriting to show a different trait, then the trait is not truly permanent.

Analyze the Choices

Let's consider each option to understand which best portrays the argument's reasoning: - **(A)** implies citing evidence that leads to absurd conclusions, which aligns with our analysis of pointing out contradictions. - **(B)** discusses a claim as a platitude, which doesn't fit the argument's structure. - **(C)** suggests effectiveness when subjects are aware, but the argument focuses on contradictions, not effectiveness. - **(D)** involves lacking theoretical justification, but the argument doesn't attack theoretical foundations. - **(E)** argues the technique's redundancy, while the argument is about contradiction, not redundancy.

Select the Best Matching Choice

Option (A) reflects the reasoning of pointing out that if graphologists' claim about permanent traits were true, then it would lead to the absurdity that permanent traits must be changeable. This is directly aligned with demonstrating absurd consequences by using the graphologists' own claims.

Key concepts

Argument Analysis

When analyzing an argument, the goal is to understand the premises and conclusions, along with the logical structure used to connect them. In the context of graphology, the argument makes a bold claim: that permanent character traits can be detected from handwriting. However, it challenges this claim by introducing the idea that people can change their handwriting.
This challenge creates a premise that leads to a contradiction, suggesting that if handwriting indicates permanent traits yet can be altered at will, then these traits aren't truly permanent. It's essential to break down arguments into these components:

• Premise: Handwriting can reveal permanent traits.
• Contradictory Premise: Handwriting can be altered.
• Conclusion: Permanent traits can be changed, which is a contradiction.

This method of analyzing involves identifying contradictions with the original claim, leading to a logical conclusion that undermines the claim itself. Such scrutiny is fundamental in evaluating the soundness of arguments, especially those involving unconventional methods like graphology.

Contradiction in Reasoning

A contradiction arises in reasoning when an argument contains statements that cannot simultaneously be true. In the graphology argument, we identify a contradiction by focusing on the term 'permanent traits.'
If graphologists argue that handwriting reveals these immutable traits, yet acknowledge people can change their handwriting, they inadvertently claim that permanent traits are mutable. This directly contradicts the basic definition of a permanent trait.
The reasoning involves observing:

• Graphology's claim of permanence.
• Human ability to alter handwriting consciously.
• The resulting logical inconsistency.

Recognizing such contradictions weakens the argument and highlights the importance of internal consistency. Logical reasoning thrives on clarity and consistency; any contradiction calls for revisiting and reassessing the premises to ensure they genuinely support the conclusion.

Graphology Critique

Graphology, or the analysis of handwriting as a window into personality traits, faces significant scrutiny due to its underlying assumptions. Critiques often focus on the lack of empirical evidence supporting graphology's claims. The exercise examines the claim that handwriting permanently reflects character traits but reveals a flaw by showing these traits as changeable.
Critics argue:

• Lack of scientific basis: Graphology doesn't consistently predict personality since handwriting can change based on various factors.
• Subjectivity in interpretation: Often, graphologists' analyses rely on subjective opinions rather than measurable criteria.
• Alternative explanations: Characteristics attributed to graphology can be better explained by psychological methods and personality tests.

The critique extends to addressing the redundancy of graphology given the capacity of individuals to alter their handwriting consciously. This examination leads to questioning its validity as a reliable technique, underscoring the need for critical thinking when evaluating pseudo-scientific claims.