Question ID:PT19 S4 Q26 Passage:Sasha:  Handwriting analysis should be banned in court as evidence of a person's character:  handwriting analysts called as witnesses habitually exaggerate the reliability of their analyses.Gregory:  You are right that the current use of handwriting analysis as evidence is problematic.  But this problem exists only because there is no licensing board to set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.  When such a board is established, however, handwriting analysis by licensed practitioners will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment. Stem:Which one of the following, if true, would provide Sasha with the strongest counter to Gregory's response? Correct Answer Choice:DChoice A:Courts routinely use means other than handwriting analysis to provide evidence of a person's character. Choice B:Many people can provide two samples of their handwriting so different that only a highly trained professional could identify them as having been written by the same person. Choice C:A licensing board would inevitably refuse to grant licenses to some responsible handwriting analysts for reasons having nothing to do with their reliability. Choice D:The only handwriting analysts who claim that handwriting provides reliable evidence of a person's character are irresponsible. Choice E:The number of handwriting analysts who could conform to professional standards set by a licensing board is very small.