When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske

Question

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 accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?

(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?

(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

ID: 100945

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Since we are trying to weaken an explanation, let's start by making sure we understand that explanation clearly:

First, let's look at the result that we are trying to explain: "When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, 'No.'" - This seems like a paradox.

If you are NOT deaf and a hypnotist asks if you can hear him/her, you should reply, "Yes!" 
 If you ARE deaf and are asked the same question, you should not reply at all... if you are deaf, you should not have heard the question being asked! 
 If you reply "No," then that suggests that you  did  hear the question. But how could you have heard the question if you are deaf? Were you lying?

Some theorists offer the following explanation: "the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies." So what the heck does that mean?

When you are hypnotized in this manner, you become "divided". Part of you is deaf, and the other part replies. 
 According to these theorists, the non-deaf part hears the question and responds, while the deaf part remains, well, deaf.

Try not to overthink here. We have an apparent paradox: if the subject is in fact deaf, how could the subject hear and reply to the question? The theorists offer an explanation: "Well, the hypnotized subject HAS a non-deaf part, so that part can hear and reply to the question."

Now, which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the theorists' explanation?

According to the theorists, the non-deaf part hears and replies to the question. Meanwhile, the  other  part is deaf. But if the subject is using the  non -deaf part to hear and reply to the question, that part should respond, "Yes!" to the question.

Sure, (A) does not PROVE that the theorists are wrong. Perhaps the hearing part is like a sports commentator who "watches" the deaf part and, like a good commentator,  reports  that the other part is deaf.

The theorists  might  have a good answer to this challenge, but (A) definitely illustrates a serious weakness in the theorists' explanation. Hang on to (A).

In other words, (B) asks, "Why do we even need to explain this paradoxical result?". Well, regardless of whether there is a good  reason  for explaining the result, the theorists have come up with an explanation. And we need an answer choice that indicates a weakness in that explanation. (B) does not illustrate a weakness, so eliminate this one.

Unlike (A), choice (C) does not hit on a major flaw in the theorists' explanation. The theorists might not care  why  the subjects accept the suggestion. They only care about how the subjects reply to the question. The theorists' explanation might even help answer this question.

(C) does not indicate a serious weakness in the theorists' explanation, so eliminate this one.

Again, does this question indicate a serious flaw in the theorists' explanation? If anything, the theorists' explanation might help answer this question: "Well, they all respond the same way because they are all divided into a deaf part and a non-deaf part."

Unlike (A), (D) does not address the theorists' logical flaw. Eliminate (D).

As with (C) and (D), this challenge does not indicate a serious weakness in the theorists' explanation. The theorists might not have a good explanation for WHY the self is always divided into the same separate parts. Regardless, their theory could explain the paradoxical result. In other words, the theorists aren't trying to explain how or why the division happens. They simply believe that the division explains the result. Eliminate (E).

(A) is the best answer.

siyer · Answer

A.

If the part that replies is dissociated from the part that is deaf, then the part that replies is not deaf and can hear the hypnotist and should answer 'yes'.

arundas · Answer

The OA is A. Attached is the explanation from OG.

pqhai · Answer

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.

GMATPill · Answer

Regarding (A) vs (D): If the two dissociated parts are indeed separate then why do people listen him in the first place when they are told they are deaf - and accordingly provide a reply. They can provide any reply Yes or No but since it always provides No, it means that both parts are not completely separate and are connected. Because the reply of "NO" makes it seem as if the subject is indeed influenced by the other part - which means the 2 parts must somehow be related. Because if they were NOT related (as the theorists try to claim) - then why do they always say NO? Why don't they say YES? If the 2 parts were NOT related, then one would expect that when a subject is asked "can you hear me?" - that the expectation is they would reply YES. SO why don't they say YES? - that's the question to ask. The issue here is not about "why do subjects always give the same response" The issue here is that there is an expected response - and we're not getting that expected response. more: https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/3005

sesh · Answer

C. Why do the subjects appear to accpet the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?

C was the most attractive choice for me and went with it. Im convinced that A is the answer with the above explanations. Thanks guys.

pradeepss · Answer

lets brick the argument:
hypnotized subject reply "NO" when asked "can you hear".
Theorist: There are 2 part: Part1: Deaf and Part2: Replies

WE need to weaken Theorist.

A: Weaken. Best Answer.
B: Out of scope
C: strengthens
D: comparision eliminate
E: neutral

Best answer is A.

samusa · Answer

We have to weaken the argument.
Simply put, if we can establish that the two parts are connected then the whole argument will fall apart or else we need to cast doubt on the findings/conclusion.

If the subject replies YES then it means that may be the parts are connected and the subject is not hypnotized

rrsnathan · Answer

Conclusion : the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?   - Weakener - If the parts are dissociated for each other. then the part that replies is not aware of wat its saying then why should it always says "Yes"  
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?   - Irrelevant 
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf? -   - Irrelevant   Not sure!!!!
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?  nothing to do with the theorist views   
 E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?  - Nuteral

Valii · Answer

My approach: If the two parts are truly disassociated, then the answering part is not deaf. Hence, it should answer the question: Can you hear me? with a Yes. Hence the answer here is A.

MulanQ · Answer

Still dont really get it. To me, the answer of "yes" or "no" doesn't make any difference because the subject does ANSWER. No matter the answer is correct or not, the fact that the subject does answer means he/she can hear. If would make more sense if the subject remains silence... which truly prove that he/she is deaf!

pqhai · Answer

Hello MulanQ

I understand the question's logic is quite hard to digest. The key point is that the deaf part is  dissociated  from the replies part.  It means that no matter one can/can't hear anything, he/she always replies in a predetermined way . In this question, the deaf part means one is hypnotized to become "deaf", he/she is not a deaf person. (I think you misunderstood this point). In order to prove that the two parts is dissociated, we have to prove  TWO cases, NOT only one  used by the author.

If the deaf part is dissociated from the replies part, so:

Case #1:    Although one  can actually hear , he/she  always replies "NO".  --> It means the the "deaf" (or the hearing part) does not affect the reply part. (If he/she says "YES", he/she may hear something actually --> the deaf part may not dissociated from the reply part).

Case #2:    Although one does  NOT hear  anything, he/she still  replies "YES"  --> It means the the "deaf" (or the hearing part) does not affect the reply part. (If he/she says "NO", he/she may not hear anything actually --> the deaf part may not dissociated from the reply part).

If the  two cases  above are shown properly, the argument's conclusion is correct. But if only one case is shown, case #1 in this question, we can't conclude that the deaf part is dissociated from the replies part.

A shows that the author "forgot" case #2, so the conclusion should be weaken.

Hope it helps.

chetan2u · Answer

hi Sheshadri,
lets see what does the Para tell us..

people who are hypnotized are told that they are deaf, which means they should not hear anything thereafter. But when asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they say 'NO'.
We can say that they may say NO, but they are answering our Q. to this, the hypnotist reason that  hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies. ..

we have to find aweakness in this arguement..
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?..
A tells us that if they are dissociated into separate parts and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies, why doesn't it say 'YES'...
 this means they can hear 
Hope it helps

Abhishek009 · Answer

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

We are told that   " the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts "   &    " the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies."   so we can conclude -

There can be 2 distinct parts -

1. Deaf Part- Can not hear any sounds   
 2. Non Deaf Part ------> Can Hear sounds

Now we also know -

So   the reply " No "   comes from the   Non Deaf Part   ( Which can actually hear the sound)

Now comes the most important question from the above - Why does the part ( Non Deaf Part - which can hear sound) which reply NO

The part which is replying No can actually listen sound ( asked by the Psychologist )   ,   then why is it replying on behalf of the Deaf Part which Can not hear any sounds ?

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
  
Thus the only correct answer is (A)

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

The argument clearly mentions that the part that is deaf is not connected with the part that replies. This is a weaken question; hence any answer choice which says that the two parts are not dissociated is my answer. When the hypnotist asked the subject whether he can hear, the answer should have been "yes" if it is true that the part that replies has no correlation with the part that is deaf as suggested by the argument. Instead the answer is "no" which clearly indicates a flaw in the reasoning. Hence "A" negates the conclusion and identifies the flaw in the reasoning.

zoezhuyan · Answer

crazy.
I have problem to understand the logic of this argument.

anyone can help?
how the theorists come to the conclusion ? hard to figure out the link of the premise and conclusion

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

sayantanc2k · Answer

Let us suppose that the theorist’s explanation is right: The self indeed dissociates into 2 parts. In such case, the part that replies must be the one that hears the question (it’s not possible that the other part, the deaf one, hears the question since the deaf part cannot hear at all); hence it’s the hearing part, not the deaf part, that must have responded after hearing the question , and then the hearing part must have responded “yes”, not “no”, since the hearing part could actually hear the question…….hence answer is A..why the hearing part did not answer “yes”....if the theorist’s explanation were right, the subject should have answered “yes”.….(however there is an underlying assumption while selecting the option A : that the hearing part does not intentionally bluff !)

Further elaboration: - 
The theorist is trying to say: the hearing part knows that there exists a deaf part that cannot hear and by replying “no”, the hearing part meant to say “the deaf part cannot hear”…well in that case we have to assume two almost absurd things: 1> The hearing part KNOWS there exists a deaf part, which cannot hear. 2> When asked “can YOU hear ?”, the hearing part mistakes the deaf part for itself and thinks “I am the deaf part and I CANNOT hear”…

zoezhuyan · Answer

thanks sauantanc2K.

thanks you're patient.

I am still confused the argument.
 self dissociated into hearing part and deaf part.
when subject is asked whether you can hear, no matter the answer is yes or no ,obviously, the response is used hearing part..

I cannot understand :
how arrive to the conclusion that the deaf part is dissociated from reply when subject answer No, 
why get conclusion when answer is no,

the premise and the conclusion seem irrelevant. no matter the answer is yes or no.

sayantanc2k · Answer

The deaf part  cannot  hear at all - hence a person who cannot hear the question, would not reply. The answer therefore comes out the part who can hear the question. Thus the part that hears the question must say "yes",because it had heard the question.

If you still feel difficulty understanding this, I would suggest that you stop thinking about this question for some days. Come back and try to grasp it once more after 4-5 days. Post again if you still have problem at that time.

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske

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

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske

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