Passage Summary: Sasha thinks handwriting analysis should be banned because the experts lie about its accuracy. Gregory argues that the experts only lie because they aren't regulated, and a licensing board would fix everything.

Conclusion: Establishing a licensing board to enforce professional standards will transform handwriting analysis into a valid courtroom tool for assessing character.

Reasoning: The current unreliability of handwriting analysis is solely due to the lack of a regulatory body to prevent analysts from making exaggerated claims.

Analysis: Gregory’s argument rests on the assumption that the only thing wrong with handwriting analysis is the behavior of the analysts themselves. To weaken this, we should look for an answer that suggests the practice is fundamentally flawed regardless of who is doing it. If the 'science' of handwriting analysis is inherently bunk, no amount of licensing or professional standards will make it a 'legitimate' tool. A strong counter would point out that the exaggeration isn't the only problem, or that a board wouldn't actually be able to verify the accuracy of these character assessments.