ardz24 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?

Premise:
When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No."
Conclusion:
The selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

The answer choices are phrased as QUESTIONS.
Rephrase the answer choices as STATEMENTS.
The correct rephrase will weaken the conclusion.

A, rephrased:
When hypnotized subjects are asked whether they can hear, the part that replies does not answer YES.
If the replying part is disassociated from the deaf part, then the replying part should be UNAWARE of the deafness and thus should answer YES when asked whether the subject can hear.
Since the replying part answers NO -- implying that the replying part is AWARE of the deafness -- it must be CONNECTED to the deaf part.
Thus, the conclusion that the two parts are disassociated is WEAKENED.

The correct answer is A.

B, rephrased:
The observed facts are in need of special explanation.
D, rephrased:
Hypnotized subjects all respond the same way.
Neither of these rephrases weakens the conclusion that the replying part is disassociated from the deaf part.
Eliminate B and D.