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

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?


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).


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.


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.


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).


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).

(A) is the best answer.