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

That's why the correct answer is (A). If the selves are truly dissociated, you'd expect the part that replies to always reply "Yes".
I don't know why you'd expect the responses to be randomized, Elite097.

Yeah because what is the reason for them to always say 'no'? There is no reason to it. It is purely random and without a logic- not related to deaf part or anything they perceive.

the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts

the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

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”…

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.

Hi sayantankc2k,

it seems to be clear after reading this thread, but I am not sure whether I really got the idea. please point out my fault.

Given one of the subjects is John

John's brain is divided into hearing part and deaf part.
under normal condition, hearing part answers only "YES" to reply, deaf part keeps silence and won't answer anything.

it must be from hearing part if answer only "YES",
it must be from deaf part if silence.
if must be from neither hearing part nor deaf part if answer "NO"

as premise says,
the answer is "NO", so get the idea that reply part, hearing part, and deaf part are independent each other,
so the conclusion is that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

Answer choice A,
if get answer "YES", then the deaf part must take use of hearing part under unawareness, so it imply that deaf part and hearing exchange information, and transfer to reply,

we can see that deaf transfer information to reply indirectly, deaf part and reply are not independent, they transfer information indirectly
so A weakens the independent relationship. Am I right?


an idea occurred moment, please help to check whether my reasoning is correct
only "YES" can be the answer through hearing part,
so "NO" is an incorrect condition/source, the stimulus's conclusion is based on an incorrect condition/source, that imply the conclusion is problematic,
if weaken , we just point the incorrect condition/source.

I am desiring your confirm.


thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~

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.

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?

Hi, can u kindly help me to understand how option A is different from option D. A asks why do the subjects dont respond 'yes'. D, on the other hand, asks why do the subjects respond in the same manner ie. they say no every time instead of yes.

Indeed I got it right. However I am still not satisfied with Choice A. What guarantees that a Yes or No to this question will make theorists' argument wrong that selves of hypnotized subjects get dissociated into separate parts?

Just restarted my GMAT life. KUDOs please

is this a easy medium or hard question on the gmat?

This is the proposed explanation for the surprising phenomenon:
the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts.
If that explanation is indeed the correct explanation, Elite097, wouldn't you expect all subjects to be impacted in the same way? In fact, I'd find it surprising if there was a variation in the ways in which the subjects were impacted.

(D) would be a good answer if we add the word "some" to the explanation:
the selves of SOME hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
(E) would be a good answer if the hypnotized subjects were all told different things (some were told that they're blind, some were told that they're deaf, etc.