OG10-79(OG11-68) 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?
I think A,C,D, and E in fact pinpoint the weeknesses of the theory from different aspects.
Why A is right? How to eliminate C,D and E? What's the reasoning line for FLAW questions?
在gonghao的帖子里我问过，再单独发一遍
When I was reading the first sentence in the stimulus --"When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply "No." " -- I noticed the response " No" is agaist common sense, the subject should answer "Yes" instead when prompted in hypnosis state.
The reasoning for each choice:
A -- use the theory to contradict its evidence
B-- irrelevant
C-- challenge the assumption--The evidence that subjects answered "no" instead of "yes" showed that they were catering for hypnotist's suggestion they are deaf
D-- challenge the evidence, because either deaf part or response part will be in charge and hence the responses cound be "yes", or "unresponsive" rather than "no" . I think D is the closest to A.
E--challenge the theory itself, because if selves can be dissociated, hearing part can also exist besides deaf part and response part.
Why FLAW can't be in assumption C and conclusion itself E? What's the diffence between A and D? Does this question indicate that we should use the conclusion to contradict its evidence when dealing with FLAW questions?
一样的问题,顶
在我的帖子后面啊？好久没看了呵呵
解释一下根据OG11，我个人对这题的理解。过程先弄清，先催眠告诉“you are deaf”，然后在催眠的情况下提问“can you hear me？”。
当subjects are told that they are deaf 的时候，此时，有两种情况，
1.deaf part of selves 起作用，则subjects应该是连“You are deaf”这句也听不见的，更别提后面的东西了。所以当被问及，“can you hear me”的时候，（此时处于催眠状态）反应应该是“无反应”
2.hearing part of selves起作用，则subjects应该是在使用听的见的部分，subjects应该是听见了“You are deaf””，则后面的反应部分也应该是听的见的，（此时处于催眠状态）所以回答应该是“yes”
可见应该只有两种可能“无反映”或“yes”，但是有人居然反应“no”。
根据文章给出的解释，经过推理，no不应该出现，但是现在有人回答no，则使得这种解释本身出现破绽。
所以A是答案
B无关，比较的显然
C：文章里有一个对现象的解释，其解释的基础就是，有人接受使用了hearing part of selves从而听了催眠师的话，认为自己是聋的，聋的应该对应NO，所以回答no。但是我们知道，经过我们顺从hearing part of selves这个解释进行推理，得出的结果应该是yes。这就是flaw，一个推理结果的不同。这里的flaw是要求对推理链找寻推理破绽，而不是把解释本身作为推翻的对象。即，1.承认解释的存在，且解释本身就是我们寻找错误的对象。2.不能推翻解释，说解释不该存在。
就像一个人做了一系列事以后，生病了，有人给了一个解释，但是照这个解释，这个人做了这些事他依然是不该生病，但是现在病了，找到这个解释错在哪里？而不是说，根本就不是这样解释的。
D：the same for all subjects，更多的是注重同一性，而同一性不是此题关注的重点，问题不在于为什么同一，而是这个同一的”no“的答案压根就不该出现
E：为什么所有人的自我都是这样分为听的见和听不见的部分。这就是在challenge文章本身，也是解释本身，有点同C。我们要做的是，找出解释的错误点，而不是否定解释或去换一个解释。
谢谢斑竹，很有启发---“这里的flaw是要求对推理链找寻推理破绽，而不是把解释本身作为推翻的对象。即，1.承认解释的存在，且解释本身就是我们寻找错误的对象。2.不能推翻解释，说解释不该存在。”
“我们要做的是，找出解释的错误点，而不是否定解释或去换一个解释。” --- 可是不久我又迷惑了
OG10版16题的答案D--- 居然不是指出flaw, 而是去纠正flaw，这是ETS的疏忽吧，还是我教条了
16. During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
B. Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces。
如果把D改写成以下，似乎就完美了
改写D: Comparing total numbers of deaths rather than comparing death rates per thousand members of each group
再问gonghao NN, FLAW题如何下手，指出FLAW的方式或方向有几种？ETS 出FlAW题的原则似乎因题而变，自相矛盾，别的 logic 题型相比起来解题思路要清晰多了。
up
看清问题
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
通过下列个哪个得出结论是荒唐的（即选项必须是能推理得出不同结论的）
看文章：
原因：国外当兵死去的绝对数字小于国内死亡的绝对数字
结论：国外当兵比较安全
absudity of the conclusion可见要削弱结论。
即做的weaken题，weaken结论，找一个能得出和原文结论不同的结论的，就是答案。
因为单比较绝对值是不足以反应哪里比较安全的。只又比较了死亡率，才能得出哪里比较安全。如果出去10个死了10个，国内一亿人，死了10个，那还是国内安全。
所以选了D。应该比较的是死亡率，不是死亡个体的绝对数值。这正是原文absurd的地方，比较错对象了。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
您改写的D: Comparing total numbers of deaths rather than comparing death rates per thousand members of each group
这个指出了文章的错误。但是如果以此作为出发点进行推理，刚好是得出文章得结论。（即比较数值，而不比较死亡率）
问题得reveal很关键，不仅要求指出错误，还要求对选项进行推理，得出相反结论。
此题是weaken题。flaw是weaken的一种。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
9．FLAW IN THE REASONING
看原文：找出原文错误
找答案：描述原文错误的为答案。描述的因素原文没有的为错误答案
TEST：描述原文的推理错误，每个元素都必须在原文出现过。
“问题得reveal很关键，不仅要求指出错误，还要求对选项进行推理，得出相反结论”
啊，原来是weaken啊。 太感谢版主了！
疙瘩解开了，今晚能睡个好觉喽！
还是回到第一题，独立的肢体能不能独立回答的问题。
我想了好久，希望这个解释对大家有帮助。
回答部分和收听部分是独立的，虽然收听部分聋了，回答部分没聋，所以应该回答 yes听到了
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |