Those who suffer from dissociative identity disorder are said to

Question

Those who suffer from dissociative identity disorder are said to develop multiple personalities, called alters, so distinct from their own that some may even complain of imagined ailments. However, when supposedly blind alters are asked in writing whether they can see, they respond, “No.” Some psychiatrists attempt to explain this result by suggesting that blind alters are one part of a disassociated psyche, and it is actually another part of the psyche that responds to the question.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

A. Why do all the supposedly blind alters respond identically in the situation described?
B. Why must the observed fact be provided a special explanation?
C. Why do the supposedly blind alters develop the delusion that they cannot see?
D. Why does the part of the psyche that answers not reply, "Yes"?
E. Why are the separate parts of the psyche the same for all subjects?

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Adit_ · Answer

The conclusion is that there are two parts.
One part is actually blind and the other NOT blind and this is able to read the question and answer as "No". 
But wait, if that other alter can see, why didn't he actually say "yes"?
Option D portrays the same.

Answer:  Option D

postAlone · Answer

Best Challenge to the Psychiatrists’ Explanation
 Correct answer: (A) 
 Why (A) is strongest: 
 If  different  parts of the psyche are doing the reading and answering, we’d expect  variation  in responses. Instead,  all  supposedly blind alters consistently answer “No” when asked in writing if they can see. This uniformity strongly suggests the  same  alter is reading and responding—undermining the claim that the blind alter cannot see.

Why the Others Are Weaker
 
  (B)  Too vague. It questions the need for an explanation but doesn’t attack the explanation itself. 
  (C)  Off-topic. It asks why alters believe they’re blind, not how they can read. 
  (D)  Somewhat relevant, but psychiatrists can easily say the seeing part is just relaying the blind alter’s belief. 
  (E)  Too general. It doesn’t address the specific reading–responding problem.

Conclusion
 (A) most directly exposes the core flaw  in the psychiatrists’ explanation.

Adit_ · Answer

A is close yeah and I could be wrong but I do think D is stronger, because of the people said no and the psychiatrist's reasoning is that the other alter is answering the problem, that begs the question why didn't he say yes? So basically the person with multiple personalities is likely lying in order to conceal the fact that the person indeed can't see when he actually does .
The direct causation's direct question would thus likely be of why he didn't say yes because both would technically lead to the same underlying conclusion of the argument that his alter ego is answer. Since the argument doesn't address that portion and is rather incomplete option D weakens it the best IMO.

Bubbasch · Answer

The correct answer is **D**.
### Logical Breakdown
To find the weakness, let’s first map out the argument’s structure:
 * **The Fact:** "Blind" alters (who claim they cannot see) are asked in writing whether they can see. They respond "No."
 * **The Problem:** To write the word "No," the person must be able to see the question and the paper. This creates a paradox.
 * **The Explanation (The Psychiatrists' Theory):** The "blind" alter isn't the one responding. Instead, a *different* part of the psyche (one that can see) is the one providing the answer.
### Why 'D' is the Weakness
The psychiatrists are trying to save the theory by saying, "The part of the mind that answered can actually see."
However, if the part of the mind that answered is a part that **can** see, then when it is asked "Can you see?", it should logically answer **"Yes."** By answering "No," it is affirming the blindness of the alter, even though it (the answering part) clearly has visual access to the question. The explanation fails to account for why a seeing part of the mind would provide a "No" response.
### Analysis of Other Options
 * **A:** This is a general observation about the consistency of the behavior, but it doesn't directly attack the logical failure of the "seeing part" answering "No."
 * **B:** This is a meta-question about why we need an explanation at all; it doesn't address the *weakness* of the specific explanation provided.
 * **C:** This addresses the *origin* of the disorder, not the logical loophole in the psychiatrists' explanation of the experiment.
 * **E:** Similar to A, this is a broad question about the nature of DID across all subjects, rather than a specific critique of the "blind alter" experiment logic.

cosmic_matters123 · Answer

please clear the confusion between A and D

Bubbasch · Answer

The Anatomy of the Explanation
The psychiatrists are faced with a contradiction: A "blind" person saw a written question and wrote down an answer. To resolve this, they propose a Division of Labor theory:
1. Part X (The Alter): Is blind.
2. Part Y (Another part of the psyche): Can see and is the one who actually wrote the answer.

Detailed Breakdown: Why D is the Winner?

D asks: Why does the part of the psyche that answers not reply, "Yes"?

The psychiatrists' goal is to explain how a "blind" person managed to read a question. Their solution is: "The person who answered isn't the blind one; it's a part of the mind that can see."

• The Logical Trap: if "Part Y" is the one reading and writing, and "Part Y" is characterized as the part that can see, then when Part Y is asked "Can you see?", its honest answer should be "Yes."

• The Failure: By answering "No," the answering part is still acting as if it is blind. The psychiatrists' explanation solves the physical mystery (how they could see the paper) but creates a new psychological mystery: Why would a seeing part of the mind claim to be blind? This makes the explanation incomplete and logically inconsistent.

Why Not A?
A asks: Why do all the supposedly blind alters respond identically in the situation described?
While this seems like a fair question, it is a weakness in the data, not a weakness in the explanation.

• Consistency isn't a flaw: In many psychological disorders, patients exhibit identical symptoms (e.g., most people with a broken leg have trouble walking). The fact that all subjects behave the same way actually makes the psychiatrists' explanation more necessary, not less valid.

• It doesn't attack the "Seeing Part" theory: Even if all alters respond identically, the psychiatrists' theory (that another part of the psyche is doing the work) could still technically be true.

Option A asks for more data, but it doesn't point out a logical contradiction within the theory itself.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

D is the best choice.

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7nE1r9DtT4

Those who suffer from dissociative identity disorder are said to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Those who suffer from dissociative identity disorder are said to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards