Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q11 Mario: The field of cognitive

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Mario's 1st Claim

Cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline. does Lucy argue that cognitive science is an autonomous discipline?

Somewhat, but she never says the words cognitive science. It sounds more like she's disagreeing with Mario's reasoning in his first sentence. He was saying that a discipline that addresses issues from other fields is not a genuinely autonomous discipline, and she is pointing out to him that by that same logic, he would have to consider philosophy to be not a genuinely autonomous discipline (but he does consider it autonomous).

Mario's 2nd Claim

Cognitive science addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. does Lucy argue that cognitive science doesn't address issues from those other disciplines?

Definitely not. She never talks about cognitive science.

Mario's 3rd Claim

Genuinely autonomous disciplines have a domain of inquiry all their own. does Lucy argue that you don't need to have a domain of inquiry all your own to be a genuinely autonomous discipline?

Definitely. This last claim by Mario is sort of naming the assumption that was operative in his first sentence. He seems to be thinking . Lucy is saying,

Goal

The most apparent disagreement is about what determines whether something is / isn't a genuinely autonomous discipline: - having a domain of inquiry all your own (i.e. not addressing issues addressed by other disciplines) vs. - having a unique methodology

11.

On the basis of their statements, Mario and Lucy are committed to disagreeing about the truth of which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    If a field of study

    Why this is right

    Lucy would agree with this, because she says that "a field of study is a genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology, not based on whether or not it addresses issues that no other field addresses (not based on whether it has a domain of inquiry all its own)." She's saying that as long as something like philosophy / cognitive science have their own unique methodology, they can still be considered a genuinely autonomous discipline. Mario would disagree with this, since his final claim says "a genuinely autonomous discipline has a domain of inquiry all its own". Also, his first sentence is reasoning based on the assumption that, "if a discipline doesn't have a domain of inquiry all its own, then it doesn't count as a genuinely autonomous discipline."

    Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  2. If a field of study

    No Support Person 1

    Mario does think that cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline, but he never talks about "unique methodology" at all, so we would have no idea what his position on this would be.

    3% picked this

  3. All fields of study that

    Nobody Disagrees

    Seemingly Lucy would agree with this because she thinks that a field of study is autonomous if it has a unique methodology. But Mario might also agree with this, since all these fields of study have a domain of inquiry all their own (he said it was necessary, not sufficient, so we're not sure he'd agree but we have no evidence he'd disagree).

    6% picked this

  4. Any field of study that

    No Support from Either

    We might correctly find this unappealing at a glance, because it's a universal about all non-genuinely autonomous disciplines. It doesn't seem like either person supported any universal generalization about things that aren't genuinely autonomous disciplines. If we contraposed this answer to match the language of the paragraphs a little better, we'd get something like this: Unique domain of inquiry genuinely or → autonomous Unique methodology discipline Neither person would sign off on a conditional like that. If Mario agreed to that rule, he would think that any field of study with a unique methodology (whether or not it had a unique domain of inquiry) was a genuinely autonomous discipline. But he definitely doesn't believe that. And Lucy would be agreeing to a rule that says any field of study with a domain of its own is automatically a genuinely autonomous discipline, which she clearly does not believe. Conditional Logic note: The word "any" is sufficient indicator, so this is saying ~unique meth not genuinely auto disc → and ~unique domain That's why when we contraposed this rule we ended up with an Or on the left side.

    3% picked this

  5. Any field of study that

    No Support from Either

    Neither person would sign-off on this extreme universal about all fields of study that aren't genuinely autonomous. They're fighting about what is required to be a genuinely autonomous discipline, so they're only saying stuff about what all genuinely autonomous disciplines would have in common, not about what all non-genuinely autonomous disciplines would have in common.

    11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free