hypnotism problem

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

hypnotism problem

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:48 pm
when hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and then they are asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply,"No" some theorist 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 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 accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
D.why do the 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?

plz explain yr answer
Last edited by pradeepkaushal9518 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:58 pm
I think the question is not complete.. Can you please recheck?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:23 pm
IMO A
--Anand--

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:19 am
A. 2 parts : 1 deaf part, and 1 part that replies. By saying "No", the part that replies is speaking on behalf if the deaf part. If this explanation is indeed true, then why is it that the part that replies does not speak for itself and say "Yes, I can hear you." Thus the explanation is flawed.

B. This challenges the need for an explanation, not the explanation itself.

C. This is not in the scope of the argument. We are studying the effects of hypnotism, not why it works.

D. Irrelevant - we know they respond that way. Why do they? That's what we are trying to explain. This is definitely not a flaw but leads into the explanation.

E. This takes the explanation as true and tries to question why this happens. Here we are trying to challenge this explanation, not to ask why it is the same. We want to know whether or not there are in fact any parts.

Pick A.
~Abhay

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:11 am
mr kvcpk plz respond corrections done