Passage Summary: Mario argues that cognitive science isn't a real independent field because it talks about things other fields already cover. Lucy disagrees, pointing out that philosophy does the same thing but is still considered independent. She argues that what makes a field independent is how it studies things, not just what it studies.

Conclusion: Cognitive science can be considered a genuinely autonomous discipline despite sharing topics with other fields.

Reasoning: Philosophy is widely accepted as autonomous even though it shares topics with other fields, and the true mark of autonomy is a unique methodology rather than exclusive subject matter.

Analysis: Focus strictly on the structure of Lucy's rebuttal. She employs a counterexample—philosophy—to demonstrate that Mario's criteria for autonomy would exclude a field he already accepts as autonomous. Furthermore, she challenges the underlying definition Mario provides by offering an alternative standard based on methodology. To identify the correct answer, look for a description of her pointing out an internal inconsistency in Mario's position and proposing a different criterion.