LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 10

February 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:13

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT108 S2 Q10	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method	A 0% B 8% 158 C 89% 167 D 3% 159 E 0% 148	131 142 153	+Medium	145.001 +SubsectionEasier

Mario: The field of cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline since it addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. A genuinely autonomous discipline has a domain of inquiry all its own.

Lucy: Nonsense. You’ve always acknowledged that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline and that, like most people, you think of philosophy as addressing issues also addressed by the disciplines of linguistics, mathematics, and psychology. A field of study is a genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology rather than by virtue of its addressing issues that no other field of study addresses.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Lucy denies Mario’s claim that a genuinely autonomous discipline has its own domain inquiry and instead concludes a field is autonomous by virtue of having its own methodology. As evidence, she points out that in the past Mario has acknowledged philosophy as a genuinely autonomous discipline despite also thinking philosophy addresses issues also addressed by linguistics, mathematics, and psychology.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Lucy counters the position held by Mario. She does this by pointing out that Mario has demonstrated beliefs in the past that directly contradict the principle he asserts. If Mario has believed philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline, then it’s not supported that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry.

questioning Mario’s expertise in cognitive science

Lucy does not address Mario’s credentials or expertise. She only addresses the inconsistencies between Mario’s beliefs.

demonstrating that Mario confuses the notion of a field of study with that of a genuinely autonomous discipline

Lucy’s claims demonstrate that Mario has an incorrect definition of what it means for a discipline to be genuinely autonomous. This is different from confusing a genuinely autonomous discipline with a field of study.

showing that some of Mario’s beliefs are not compatible with the principle on which he bases his conclusion

The belief Mario holds is the belief that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline. This belief contradicts Mario’s principle that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry, because philosophy addresses issues also addressed by other disciplines.

disputing the accuracy of Mario’s description of cognitive science as addressing issues also addressed by other disciplines

Lucy does not address the topic of cognitive science specifically.

establishing that Mario is not a philosopher

Lucy does not address Mario’s status as a philosopher. We cannot assume this just because Lucy establishes that Mario holds inconsistent beliefs about philosophy.

LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 10

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel