When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

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?

Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?

Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?

Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?

Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?

Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No."	What it says: Hypnotized people who are told they're deaf say they can't hear the hypnotist when asked What it does: Sets up a puzzling situation that needs explanation What it is: Experimental observation Visualization: Hypnotist tells subject "You are deaf" → Hypnotist asks "Can you hear me?" → Subject responds "No" (but they obviously heard the question to respond!)
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.	What it says: Some experts think the mind splits into separate parts - one deaf part and one speaking part What it does: Offers a theoretical explanation for the puzzling observation we just learned about What it is: Theorists' explanation Visualization: Person's mind splits: [Deaf Part - can't hear] + [Speaking Part - can respond] = explains how they can answer "no" without hearing

Argument Flow:

We start with a strange experimental finding, then get an attempted explanation for that finding. The passage presents the theorists' explanation but doesn't endorse it.

Main Conclusion:

There isn't really a main conclusion here - this passage just describes a phenomenon and one proposed explanation for it.

Logical Structure:

This is more of a setup than a complete argument. We have: Strange observation (people say they can't hear but clearly can) → Proposed explanation (mind splits into parts). The question will likely ask us to find problems with this explanation.

Prethinking:

Question type:
Weaken - We need to find what information would make us doubt or question the dissociation theory explanation

Precision of Claims
The theory claims that hypnotized subjects' minds split into separate parts - specifically a deaf part that can't hear and a speaking part that can respond. The theory assumes these parts operate independently.

Strategy
To weaken this dissociation theory, we need to find evidence that challenges the idea that the mind actually splits into separate, independent parts. We should look for scenarios that show the supposed 'separate parts' are actually connected or that there's a simpler explanation for why people say 'No' when asked if they can hear.

Answer Choices Explained

Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?

This directly attacks the logical foundation of the dissociation theory. If the mind truly splits into separate, independent parts, then the speaking part (which can hear) should answer 'Yes' when asked if it can hear the hypnotist. The fact that it answers 'No' suggests the parts aren't actually separate - they must be connected somehow, which undermines the entire explanation. This reveals the most serious weakness in the theory.

Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?

This questions whether the phenomenon needs any special explanation at all, but this doesn't specifically challenge the dissociation theory itself. Even if we accept that some explanation is needed, this doesn't help us evaluate whether the dissociation theory is a good explanation or not.

Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?

This asks about why subjects accept the hypnotic suggestion in the first place. However, this doesn't challenge the dissociation explanation specifically. Whether or not we understand why people accept hypnotic suggestions, we still need to evaluate if the dissociation theory properly explains what happens after they accept it.

Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?

This asks why all subjects respond the same way, but uniform responses don't necessarily weaken the dissociation theory. In fact, consistent responses across subjects might even support the idea that there's a systematic psychological mechanism (like dissociation) at work.

Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

This questions why the separate parts are the same across subjects, but again, this doesn't fundamentally challenge whether dissociation actually occurs. Having similar mental structures across people wouldn't necessarily weaken the dissociation explanation.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...