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

 It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 01:38

### 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

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 207
When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 09 Oct 2018, 08:49
8
1
60
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (01:07) correct 37% (01:30) wrong based on 1513 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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?

_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Originally posted by perfectstranger on 17 Jul 2008, 10:17.
Last edited by Bunuel on 09 Oct 2018, 08:49, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2039
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2018, 10:38
7
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?

Quote:
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?

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).

Quote:
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?

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.

Quote:
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?

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.

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

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).

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

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).

_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Status: Please do not forget to give kudos if you like my post
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 98
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

_________________

##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 153
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 11:05
10
1
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'.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1036
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: 2263
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: 14
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 301
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: 160
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 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: 14
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: 1036
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.

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6961
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

Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4094
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 )

Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 273
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: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 255
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: 3031
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: 255
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: 3031
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: 255
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

>_~
Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then aske &nbs [#permalink] 30 Sep 2016, 05:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by