When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
A. why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?
B. why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
C. Why do the subjects appear to accpet the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
D. Why do hypnotized subjets all respond the same way in the situation described?
E. why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
Can anyone explain choice E for me? I'm getting confusing how to find the weaken questions from the answers.
Premise: hypnotized subjects are told they are deaf then asked. They replied "No".
Conclusion: Replies part and deaf part are independent.
Weakness: if the two parts (deaf & replies) are independent, why the hypnotized subjects always replies "No". They always say "No" because there must be a connection
between deaf part and replies part. So the deaf part commands the replies part say "NO". If there's no connection, the subjects could say "YES" or "NO". It doesn't matter
@Yvonne: "Can anyone explain choice E for me?"
E doesn't help at all. E just says the deaf part and the replies part are the same for all subjects, it means every subject have the same two parts - deaf part & replies part. This is true, but E doesn't help to explain whether there's a connection between the two parts or not.
Hope it helps.
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.