PT108.S2.Q11 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Mario: Conclusion The field of cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline since Support it addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████

█████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ █ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Mario claims that cognitive science isn't a genuinely autonomous discipline. He makes this claim based on the fact that cognitive science overlaps with issues addressed by other disciplines, and based on the general principle that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have its own domain of inquiry.

Lucy rejects Mario's argument. She points out that Mario believes philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline, though he also believes philosophy addresses issues that overlap with other disciplines — beliefs which are inconsistent with the principle he invoked. Lucy then invokes a different principle than Mario's for defining a genuinely autonomous discipline: an autonomous discipline is one with a unique methodology, rather than one with its own unique set of issues of inquiry.

11.

On the basis of their ███████████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████

Question Type

Point at issue: disagree

Notice that while Mario's main point is specifically about the field of cognitive science — cognitive science is not an autonomous discipline — we don't actually know whether Lucy thinks cognitive science is an autonomous discipline or not. But we do know that she thinks Mario has the wrong reasons for concluding that cognitive science is not an autonomous discipline: she disagrees with his claim that to be genuinely autonomous, a discipline must have a unique "domain of inquiry". Instead, she proposes that if a field has its own unique methodology, this is enough to make it genuinely autonomous.

If a field ██ █████ ████ ███ █ ██████ ███████████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ███████████

Correct. According to Mario, to be genuinely autonomous, a field must have a unique domain of inquiry — i.e., without such a domain, a field is not genuinely autonomous. So Mario would disagree with (A). Meanwhile, we know Lucy thinks having a unique methodology is enough to make a field of study an autonomous discipline, even if it doesn't address issues that no other field of study addresses. So Lucy would agree with (A).

84%

If a field ██ █████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████████████

Incorrect. Since Lucy thinks having a unique methodology makes a field genuinely autonomous (i.e., having a unique methodology is a sufficient condition for a field to be genuinely autonomous), we know she would disagree with (B) by the contrapositive: if a field is not genuinely autonomous, it does not have a unique methodology. But we don't know what Mario would think about (B), because he never talks about fields having unique methodologies. So we can't say that Mario and Lucy necessarily disagree on (B).

All fields of █████ ████ ███ █████████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████████████

Incorrect. We know that for Lucy, having a unique methodology even without a unique domain of inquiry is sufficient for a field to be a genuinely autonomous discipline. So Lucy would agree with (C). But we only know that Mario thinks having a unique domain of inquiry is necessary, not sufficient, for a field to be genuinely autonomous, and we don't know what he thinks about fields having unique methodologies. So we don't know if Mario would agree or disagree with (C).

Any field of █████ ████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █ ██████ ████████████

Incorrect. We know that Lucy would say that a field that is not genuinely autonomous lacks a unique methodology, but we don't know if she thinks such a field must also lack a unique domain of inquiry. Meanwhile, we can't conclude anything from Mario's argument about what he thinks about fields that are not genuinely autonomous disciplines.

Any field of █████ ████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████

Incorrect. We know what Mario thinks about genuinely autonomous disciplines needing their own unique fields of inquiry, but we don't know what he thinks about fields that aren't genuinely autonomous disciplines necessarily having fields of inquiry that overlap with genuinely autonomous disciplines. And we know that for Lucy, having a unique field of inquiry isn't really relevant to whether a discipline is genuinely autonomous or not. We don't know if she thinks all non-autonomous disciplines must have fields of inquiry that are not unique.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 108 - Section 2 - Question 11

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action