ChaseDream

标题: 一道百思不得其解的逻辑题 [打印本页]

作者: mike125615212 时间: 2012-1-29 10:14
标题: 一道百思不得其解的逻辑题
63. When hypnotized subjects are toldthat they are deafand are then asked whether they can hear thehypnotist, theyreply, “No.” Some theorists try toexplain this result by arguing that the selvesofhypnotized subjects are dissociated into separateparts, and that the partthat is deaf is dissociatedfrom the part that replies.
Which of the following challengesindicates the mostserious weakness in the attempted explanationdescribed above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of anyspecialexplanation ?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept thehypnotist’s suggestion that theyare deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond thesame way in the situationdescribed?
(E) Why are the separate parts of theself the samefor all subjects?

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-1-29 12:05
A is right. Since the deaf part and the replying part are dissociated from each other, we can deduce the part that replies is not deaf. Thus, when answering the question "Can you hear me?", they should reply "Yes!"

D is wrong because if the hearing part and the deaft part are separated, all subjects can give a uniformed answer to the same question. This is in accordance to the theorist hypothesis. For example, if they all answer "Yes," the hypothesis holds. So the fact that the answers are uniformed does not weaken the argument

作者: 翠儿卡 时间: 2012-2-24 17:26

A is right. Since the deaf part and the replying part are dissociated from each other, we can deduce the part that replies is not deaf. Thus, when answering the question "Can you hear me?", they should reply "Yes!"

D is wrong because if the hearing part and the deaft part are separated, all subjects can give a uniformed answer to the same question. This is in accordance to the theorist hypothesis. For example, if they all answer "Yes," the hypothesis holds. So the fact that the answers are uniformed does not weaken the argument

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/1/29 12:05:39)

I think C is a confusing option and I just eliminate it by intuition without thoughtful consideration--C seems to be similar to or the other side to A, saying why the part of deaf works, but looks more ambiguous and wide. Is there any frank explanation to my intuition?

And at the very beginning, I almost regard this question as EVALUATE and I feel puzzled with C and D because however these two options strengthen or weaken the conclusion they can affect the conclusion. But that is a WEAKEN one and the explanation in OG for C and D just use the positive answer to evaluate the option. So is that means we should differentiate the WEAKEN and EVALUATE questions when all options are stated in interrogative forms and take different measures to deal with them?

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-2-24 22:59
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept thehypnotist’s suggestion that theyare deaf?

This is logical according to the theorist hypothesis: the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies. Since both parts were hypothesized, then definitely the subjects would accept anything the hypnotist says. That acceptance part is not the problem with the hypothesis. It is the answer part that is questionable.

作者: yokingyao 时间: 2012-2-26 17:35

既然两个部分是分开的，当问到“你们是否听得见？”如果是处于听得见的部分，应该回答“Yes”,如果是处于聋子状态的部分，应该不作声，因为听不见（……and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies）。所以A选项一针见血。（个人理解，不一定准确）

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)