PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 10
Mario: The field of cognitive science is not(97 more words not shown)
Lucy responds to Mario(1 more words not shown)
- Aquestioning Mario's expertise(3 more words not shown)
- Bdemonstrating that Mario(15 more words not shown)
- Cshowing that some(15 more words not shown)
- Ddisputing the accuracy(14 more words not shown)
- Eestablishing that Mario(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does studying some of the same issues make cognitive science incapable of being its own discipline? I would want to be careful with that claim. Imagine a field studies 100 issues and other fields study 90 of them. Some overlap wouldn't, by itself, show that the field has nothing of its own to study.
Mario takes a stricter position: a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a domain all its own. Here, “autonomous” means independent. His reason for denying cognitive science that status is its overlap with computer science, linguistics, and psychology.
Lucy doesn't respond by counting the issues cognitive science studies. She points to philosophy. Mario accepts philosophy as an autonomous discipline even though its subject matter also overlaps other fields. If overlap disqualifies cognitive science, why doesn't it disqualify philosophy?
What we’re looking for
Lucy then proposes a different basis for independence: a distinctive method, rather than exclusive ownership of a set of issues. The question asks how she responds to Mario. I'd initially describe her response as challenging his standard for what makes a discipline independent. In choosing an answer, keep both parts of that challenge in view: his own philosophy example doesn't fit his standard, and she offers a different standard.
Working the answers
- A
Lucy challenges Mario's reasoning, not his qualifications to discuss cognitive science. She doesn't say he lacks training or expertise. Someone could be an expert and still apply a rule inconsistently; that's the problem she identifies.
- B
A field of study and an autonomous discipline need not be identical ideas, but Lucy doesn't accuse Mario of confusing them. Mario explicitly supplies a condition for a field to qualify as autonomous. She challenges that condition by showing how it conflicts with his judgment about philosophy.
- CCorrect
Mario accepts two claims that don't fit comfortably together: philosophy is autonomous, and an autonomous discipline must have its own exclusive domain. Yet philosophy overlaps other fields. Applying his rule to that example would undermine a belief he already accepts.
That's how Lucy uses Mario's own views against the principle behind his conclusion about cognitive science. The answer doesn't mention her alternative about methodology, which was part of our initial description. It still accurately captures the inconsistency she exposes before offering that alternative.
- D
Lucy doesn't deny that cognitive science shares issues with other fields. She questions whether sharing issues prevents a discipline from being autonomous. Those are different responses: one disputes the overlap itself; the other disputes what Mario thinks follows from it.
- E
Nothing in Lucy's reply establishes whether Mario is a philosopher. She uses philosophy as an example he already accepts. His occupation or professional identity isn't the point; his beliefs about that example are.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.