LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 10
Method of ReasoningArgument structure
Lucy rejects Mario's claim that cognitive science is not an autonomous discipline.
Lucy points out that Mario has always held that philosophy is an autonomous discipline, and that philosophy studies issues that other disciplines study as well. This contradicts Mario's own claim that an autonomous field of study needs to have a domain of inquiry that's all it's own (in other words, has to study issues that no other fields address). Lucy claims that an autonomous field of study just needs to have a unique methodology.
Explanation
Lucy responds to Mario by questioning the validity of his conclusion and pointing out that the definition he gives for what is an autonomous field of study is inconsistent and incompatible with another view that he has expressed in the past. She then offers an alternative definition for what makes an autonomous field of study.
Answer choices
Whether or not these people are experts in cognitive science is never discussed.
She never says this. Autonomous disciplines are just a subset of all fields of study, Lucy doesn't say Mario confused the two concepts. Lucy just questions Mario's criteria for determining which disciplines are autonomous.
Lucy points out that Mario's claims about the autonomy of philosophy, which overlaps with other fields of study, completely contradict his claims about the autonomy of cognitive science. He seems to be using different definitions of what makes a genuinely autonomous study when evaluating each field.
Lucy never says whether or not cognitive science addresses the same issues as other fields. She just says that consideration doesn't matter in determining if it's an autonomous discipline.
Lucy never claims this.