It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 05:23

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Wharton R1 | Stanford R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Haas R1

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 83

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, 15:14
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.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 83

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 184

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2015, 22:07
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.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 184

Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 79

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2016, 10:05
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,

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 79

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5347

Kudos [?]: 6125 [1], given: 121

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2016, 19:27
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 6125 [1], given: 121

Intern
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2016, 06:27
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

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3111

Kudos [?]: 1146 [3], given: 327

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, 09:40
3
KUDOS
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 )

Kudos [?]: 1146 [3], given: 327

Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 284

Kudos [?]: 324 [1], given: 1

Location: India
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2016, 01:36
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.

Kudos [?]: 324 [1], given: 1

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10200

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 21:16
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 364

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 211

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, 00:32
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.

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 211

Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2013
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 38

Location: United States
GPA: 3.7
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2016, 23:03
I don't really understand the difference b/w option a and d. It appears both of them are implying the same.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 38

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10200

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2016, 23:45
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2016, 05:32
anyone can explain further C, and D?
I have no idea about these errors in C and D, looks good for me.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 04:09
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
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

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, 08:26
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”…

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2016, 02:56
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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

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, 08:26
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.

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [2], given: 30

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2016, 04:15
2
KUDOS
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

>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [2], given: 30

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

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, 01:26
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.

Kudos [?]: 3639 [0], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2016, 02:34
sayantanc2k wrote:
Your understanding is very crisp and clear.

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

have a nice day.
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Intern
Joined: 01 Oct 2016
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2016, 13:26
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.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske   [#permalink] 23 Oct 2016, 13:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 71 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by