From passage: "We begin with the emergence of the philosophy of the social sciences as an arena of thought and as a set of social institutions. The two characterisations overlap but are not congruent. Academic disciplines are social institutions." Step-by-step thinking process: The author describes philosophy of social sciences in two ways -> these are the "two characterisations" -> first as "arena of thought" -> second as "set of social institutions" -> then clarifies that "academic disciplines are social institutions" -> this connects the dots -> arena of thought = academic disciplines -> set of social institutions = institutions. So the two characterisations that overlap but aren't congruent are: academic disciplines and institutions.

Option elimination process: 🔴 Option 1 -> context-shift -> "individuals" and "social structures" come later when explaining what institutions do (link individuals into structures), not the two characterisations mentioned at start 🟢 Option 2 -> correct -> captures exactly what author means: philosophy of social sciences can be seen as academic disciplines OR as institutions, and these overlap but aren't identical 🟠 Option 3 -> partial-truth -> only gives us one actual characterisation ("arena of thought") but pairs it with "academic disciplines" which is the same thing, not the second characterisation 🔴 Option 4 -> scope-error -> tries to make "philosophy of social sciences" itself one of the characterisations, but that's what's being characterised, not how it's being characterised The key insight: arena of thought = academic disciplines, so the real comparison is between academic disciplines and institutions.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts