PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 11
Mario: The field of cognitive science is not(97 more words not shown)
On the basis of their(17 more words not shown)
- AIf a field(23 more words not shown)
- BIf a field(15 more words not shown)
- CAll fields of(21 more words not shown)
- DAny field of(19 more words not shown)
- EAny field of(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't a field be independent and still share some questions with other fields? That's my first reaction to Mario. Some overlap doesn't automatically tell us that every issue the field studies belongs to somebody else. Mario, however, treats a domain all its own as a requirement for genuine autonomy.
Lucy attacks that requirement in a different way. Mario accepts philosophy as autonomous even though philosophy also overlaps other disciplines. She then says the defining feature is a unique methodology: its own way of investigating things. The issue is how a field works, rather than whether nobody else asks the same questions.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, put their standards side by side. Mario requires a domain all the field's own. Lucy says a distinctive method can establish independence without that exclusive domain. We need a statement that one of them would accept and the other would reject, not just something one speaker happens to discuss.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Take the exact case described: the field has its own method, but not its own exclusive domain. Lucy says that can be an autonomous discipline because the unique method supplies what matters. Mario says it cannot, because it fails his requirement of a domain all its own.
We don't need Mario to discuss methodology explicitly. The missing domain is enough for his answer to be no, while the unique method gives Lucy a reason to say yes. That is a direct disagreement.
- B
Lucy's claim that a unique methodology makes a field autonomous works against this possibility. But Mario gives us no comparable rule about methods. He could allow a nonautonomous field to have a unique method, or he might impose another restriction. We don't have two opposing positions on B.
- C
Lucy's unique-method standard would support calling these fields autonomous. Mario hasn't said that having a domain all one's own is enough, by itself, to qualify. He says autonomous disciplines must have that feature; perhaps he thinks they need other features too. Either way, nothing establishes that he would reject C. We cannot get a disagreement here.
- D
This bundles together two claims about a field that isn't autonomous: it lacks its own domain and it lacks its own method. Neither speaker commits to that whole bundle. Lucy's standard concerns the method, while Mario's rule requires autonomous fields to have their own domains. Mario doesn't tell us that every field that fails to be autonomous must lack a domain; it could fail some other requirement he hasn't discussed.
- E
Mario cites overlap with other disciplines in this particular case. He doesn't establish that every nonautonomous field overlaps with fields that are genuinely autonomous. Lucy doesn't make that general claim either. We know their standards conflict, but this sweeping statement about all nonautonomous fields is not the conflict they establish.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.