Mario: The field of cognitive

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct78% picked this

   If a field of study that has a unique methodology lacks a domain of inquiry all its own, it can nonetheless

   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%
2. B

   No Support Person 13% picked this

   If a field of study is not a genuinely autonomous discipline, it can still have

   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%
3. C

   Nobody Disagrees6% picked this

   All fields of study that are characterized by a unique methodology and by a domain of inquiry all their

   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%
4. D

   No Support from Either3% picked this

   Any field of study that is not a genuinely autonomous discipline lacks both a unique domain of inquiry

   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%
5. E

   No Support from Either11% picked this

   Any field of study that is not a genuinely autonomous discipline addresses issues also addressed by disciplines

   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%