GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 11:02

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1152
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2013, 02:11
hare one.
lets try

there is a causal
separateness of part causes the reply of "no".

prethink:
assumption is that separateness dose not cause the reply of "yes"
flaw: separeatenes can causes the reply of "yes"

A match.

however. this is tough.
the process of prethinking is not normal because the conclusion and evidence is not clear. this is the way gmat make cr question harder.

I do not know how to deat with this type of question. the practice is meaningless if we do not khow the skill.

excepts for inference and bold phrase questions, I alway prethink an assumption before going to answer chocies. I think prethink is a good weapon which protect us from traps in answer choices.

pls comment.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6
GMAT Date: 03-16-2013
GPA: 3
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 06:02
(A) is correct
This question is so simple and only depends on your logical sense.
If hypnotized person is deaf then how hear your question and respond to you????!!!!!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 333
Location: European union
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2013, 10:27
very difficult one. What do you think
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1075
Location: United States
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2013, 00:43
3
1
yvonne0923 wrote:
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.

Thanks,
Yvonne

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 BMW Chief of Design.

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2237
Location: New York, NY
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2013, 11:19
1
yvonne0923 wrote:
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.

Thanks,
Yvonne

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: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/3005
Intern
Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Posts: 15
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2013, 20:48
2
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.
Manager
Status: Please do not forget to give kudos if you like my post
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 107
Location: United States (CA)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2013, 19:28
11
lets brick the argument:
Theorist: There are 2 part: Part1: Deaf and Part2: Replies

WE need to weaken Theorist.
[Deaf part cannot hear and Part that reply could]

B: Out of scope
C: strengthens
D: comparision eliminate
E: neutral

_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 316
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 01:25
4
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
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 168
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 10:14
3
perfectstranger wrote:
68. 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"? I
(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? C
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?

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
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 18
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2014, 22:09
68. 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.

Conclusion : selves are dissasociated. For example , subject left hand doesn't know about right hand of the subject.
Prove that still somehow there is a relation between then you will weaken the argument.

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"? POE
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any
special explanation?
out of scope. It has already happened and given as a premise.
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the
hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf? C
OFS
D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the
same way in the situation described? OFS
We dont know whether all of them respond the same way. further, the focus is on why they respond than on how all respond.

E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same
for all subjects?
OFS. We are looking for correlation between dissociated parts in a single subject. How all others respond is out of scope.
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 5
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2014, 01:58
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.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 18
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.54
WE: Asset Management (Venture Capital)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2014, 11:56
Valii wrote:
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.

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!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1075
Location: United States
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2014, 01:45
3
2
MulanQ wrote:
Valii wrote:
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.

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!

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.
_________________

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 BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 165
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 04:39
Choice A is 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"

Quite tricky question.
_________________

Current Student
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Posts: 1
Concentration: General Management, Economics
Schools: Booth '18 (A)
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2015, 16:14
This is a tricky question. Here is my take on why the correct answer is A:
If the part that replies says 'No' it means that this part actually heard the question, and therefore the subjects are not deaf. I think the explanation provided by the theorists is just there to confuse us. Simply put, answer choice A is basically saying: If you replied 'No' that means you heard the question and that means you are not deaf, so you should have replied 'Yes'. The explanation offered by the theorists is based on the assumption that test subjects are deaf (which as I stated, isn't the case since they heard the question in the first place). Anyway, that was my understanding.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2015, 23:07
fluke wrote:
ankitranjan wrote:
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?

Consider KUDOS If You like the Question.

OG question, eh!!!

Well!!!

I feel the most important weakness of the explanation is that why the dissociated part answered anything in the first place if the part that hears was also dissociated and couldn't communicate with the part that replies. Any reply can come out only when there is an association between the part that hears and the part that replies, which directly contradicts the explanation that these parts were dissociated. Thus, the very act of answering is a weakness the weakness of the explanation.

And then, comes the question why the part that replies always replied "No" and not "yes".

Second confusion is; how is "A" any different from "D".

Part are disassociated - So lets say Subject have two parts
Deaf - X
Not Deaf - Y

So. if Hyponist is saying that the Part are disassociated and the part which replied is (Y)
Then, What is the next thing one could ask, if Part Y is not deaf and he can listen to your question, then he should have answered "YES", because he can listen...

Now for Answer Choice (D), if you ask why are they all replaying in same way, as a hyponist I can answer, because they all are Deaf... so basically I can make round trips to rather giving better answer, because I have not been asked better question.

Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 31
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2016, 11:05
Hi,

I am not getting the intended meaning of this 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?

Thanks & regards,
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6554
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2016, 20:27
1
Hi,

I am not getting the intended meaning of this 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?

Thanks & regards,

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
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Intern
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
Posts: 13
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2016, 07:27
Hi,

I am not getting the intended meaning of this 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?

Thanks & regards,

Lets go with the options.
A) -> The author quoted that " the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies" ( Because the author said parts are dissociated. The mouth will accept whatever hypnotizer says. Mouth can detect whether ears can hear or not according to the logic given. So it should have said YES instead of NO.)
All the other options don't have any bearing on the logic presented in the argument.
B) clearly no use
C)-> second best answer choice. But it is asking a question not related to logic presented
D) -> not addressing logic presented
E) -> same as D
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3784
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2016, 10:40
3
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?

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 -
Quote:
the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

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)

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske &nbs [#permalink] 11 Jan 2016, 10:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 65 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.