问OG79, 不答"NO"答"YES"题的思路

maggiecookies

79. 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? A

(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

这题的思路是什么, 为什么A会对原文有WEAKNESS 的作用?

yaoyao99

The theory: subject is separated into 2 parts
1. the deaf part
2. the part that replies (but not deaf)

If part 1 were in control, then the subject shouldn't reply.
If part 2 were in control, then the subject should reply "yes" (choice A).   

maggiecookies

可原文说的是

 DISSOCIATE ??

  我还是理解不了这题, LS的能不能再解释清楚一点

maggiecookies

我又查了查GWD的笔记, GWD 这样解释:

驳斥→原文是错误的

 Eg：有一帮人被催眠家催眠了，催眠暗示这帮人是聋子，当催眠家问听见否，都答“听不见”
           选项：为什么这帮人接受了催眠家对他们是聋子的暗示
                 为什么这帮人不回答“YES”（相关驳斥）
                 为什么这帮人回答方式完全一样

 请NN指点, 为什么他的思路可一是这样? 相关驳斥是对原文不充分的WEAKEN吗?