Critical Reasoning

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 explain 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?

We're told that the hypnotized subjects have two separate parts, one that is deaf, and one that responds. Presumably then, the one that responds is not deaf. But if the one that responds is not deaf, he should be able to hear the question and answer, "Yes."

anksm22 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?

The argument concludes that the HEARING PART of the brain is disassociated from -- and thus cannot transfer information to -- the REPLYING PART of the brain.
Implication:
The REPLYING PART of the brain must be UNAWARE of questions heard by the HEARING PART, since the hearing part cannot transfer information to the replying part.
Thus, in concluding that the replying part is disassociated from the hearing part, the theorists assume that the following is true:
When hypnotized subjects respond to a question, the response comes from the HEARING PART.

The correct answer choice will attack this assumption.
Rephrase the answer choices as simple statements.
A, rephrased as a statement:
The part that responds does not answer "Yes."
By definition, the hearing part CAN HEAR.
Thus, when the hearing part is asked whether it can hear, it should answer YES.
That the hearing part does NOT answer "yes" suggests that the response from each subject does NOT come from the hearing part of the brain, WEAKENING the theorists' assumption.

The correct answer is A.