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

 It is currently 25 Sep 2018, 02:14

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
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 272
Location: India
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Jan 2016, 02:36
1
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.
_________________

Aryama Dutta Saikia
Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd.

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 336
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Mar 2016, 01:32
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.

Hi GMATers,
You know how to tell a question you quickly skip during your actual GMAT?
Answer: A question as this for you have to break meander through arcane presuppositions in order to get the answer. It wouldnt hurt your mark. Most GMAT questions, even 700 level are not like this. Are they?
Just look carefully at the explanation in the above quote.
AryamaDuttaSaikia changed the statement "subjects are dissociated into diff parts" to "subjects subjects are disociated into diff parts that has no correlation"! Where is that coming from?
It's a bit like, I see the OA first, then i begin to twist the explanation to fall in.
Lets look at C.
If they are deaf, do they have to accept they are deaf? Well they wouldnt. They would just mope because they wouldnt even hear the hypnotist telling them they are deaf. In effect, telling me that I'm deaf and I agree with you is like we are just having childish fun and I'm not any deaf.
I go with C.
Well, in effect A and C are probable correct choices.
Why would you waste your time like this in a CAT?
Why not proceed to the next question and you have saved for yourself a useful 2 minutes to answer less magical questions that will reward you for spending your time on them.
Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2013
Posts: 39
Location: United States
GPA: 3.7
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Apr 2016, 00:03
I don't really understand the difference b/w option a and d. It appears both of them are implying the same.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 275
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Sep 2016, 06:32
anyone can explain further C, and D?
I have no idea about these errors in C and D, looks good for me.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 275
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 05:09
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
>_~
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3110
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 09:26
zoezhuyan wrote:
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
>_~

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”…
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 275
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Sep 2016, 03:56
sayantanc2k wrote:
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.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3110
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Sep 2016, 09:26
zoezhuyan wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
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.

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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 275
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Sep 2016, 05:15
2
sayantanc2k wrote:
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.

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.

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?

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.

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3110
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Oct 2016, 02:26
zoezhuyan wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
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.

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.

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?

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.

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~

Your understanding is very crisp and clear.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 275
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Oct 2016, 03:34
sayantanc2k wrote:
Your understanding is very crisp and clear.

cuz had thought many times, I suspected myself even, afraid misunderstanding

have a nice day.
>_~
Intern
Joined: 01 Oct 2016
Posts: 2
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Oct 2016, 14:26
Answer C is wrong because the verb is "accept". Accepting can be done without replying. Therefore, the answer C does not contradict with the explanation.
Intern
Joined: 07 May 2015
Posts: 33
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Nov 2016, 07:06
Here is my understanding of the question. Kindly correct if my reasoning is incorrect. Thanks.

Conclusion: the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies
(1) Normally Hearing Part is connected to the Replying Part of the self
(2) Once hypnotized, Hearing Part is disconnected/dissociated from the Replying Part of the self
(3) Now, Replying part is unaware of what the Hearing part listens to.
(4) Hypnotist asks: "Can you hear me"?
(5) Hypnotized person: "No"

(4) & (5) indicate that Hearing part and Replying part are "connected" since Hearing part has transferred information to the Replying Part. Hence the weakness in the explanation describing the experiment.

Option A: Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”? (An "Yes" reply can prove that Hearing part and Replying part are dissociated)
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 275
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Jul 2017, 02:32
chetan2u wrote:
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

Hi chetan2u
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2016
Posts: 56
Location: India
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Jul 2017, 05:26
1
hypnotized subjects means people who are, when hypnotized, being told by hypnotist that they are deaf. but even after that when hypnotist ask them that can you hear me they say 'NO', And for this behavior a reason has been given. if that reason is true and the person actually can not listen anyone or Answering NO is a random behavior,why do they not sometime respond with yes.

_________________

If you want to appreciate, just click on Kudos.

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2017
Posts: 62
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jul 2017, 21:42
I would never have thought this way
Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 07:38
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?
(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?

could you please explain why the answer is a and what is the difference between a and d?
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1164
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 09:37
1
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?
(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?

Well this question took me by surprise initially i was inclining for C but after reading the prompt many number of times The answer is indeed A .
Here my reasoning for doing so

First something on hypnotism it used by people to control some other people for their own benefit where the person under hypnosis are not aware of their action.
According to prompt we are told that people under hypnosis are told that they are deaf and when asked can they hear people doing the hypnosis they say no .
We this result is paradox if they cant hear then how come they heard the question and still replied no .
We are told that this result is explained by the different dissociated selves which act independently.

A provides a counter example for the explanation given above as if if the self that replied is independent of the part that is deaf they why did it not reply yes for the question asked .

All other options are just not good enough
B out of scope
C does not answer anything about the hypothesis well i may be true for the overall research purpose for the hypnosis but not for the prompt
D There no information for this in the prompt
E Again no information given
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 277
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Sep 2017, 10:43
Thanks arvind910619 for the explanation!

_________________
Intern
Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Posts: 2
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Sep 2017, 20:00
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?

After knowing the answer I know it makes sense. But can anyone guide me through the thought process of solving problem like this? What is the logic that I need to follow?

OA: A

Originally posted by trangvann on 29 Sep 2017, 14:27.
Last edited by broall on 29 Sep 2017, 20:00, edited 1 time in total.
Merged post. Please search before posting question!
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske &nbs [#permalink] 29 Sep 2017, 14:27

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

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®.