OG12-CR63

kalakala33

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?

求教各位大牛，题意不太理解，什么叫“that the selves ofhypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate
parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociatedfrom the part that replies”，测试者到底是把什么分成了两部分，答案为什么要选A？？十分感谢！！！

zhongshanlh

说一下个人对于C选项的理解：
对于C选项——为什么这个实验对象接受自己是聋子的事实？OG解释的意思是说：如果题目中的理论是正确的话，那么就可以回答这个问题了，因为这个实验对象把自己分为了几个独立的部分，所以其中某一个部分可以接受自己是聋子的事实。所以说C选项的这个问题不但没有指出题目中理论的缺陷，反而提出了可以被题目中理论解释的问题。

sdcar2010

that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociatedfrom the part that replies.

A person who is hypnotized is called "a hypnotized subject." This person is divided into two parts, one part is deaf and the other part is not deaf and could reply. However, there is NO communication between these two parts.

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!"

taozihuhu123

还是没看明白……

wtylys

那为什么OG12的解释说，C D “if true, can help answer this question”,所以不是weaken。。

wtylys

UP UP UP

wtylys

顶阿啊啊啊啊

sanlingjie

The two parts listed in the reasoning just like two individuals, one individual is deaf (hereinafter referred to as A), but the other (that is the replier) is not (Hereinafter referred to as B). When I ask A: Can you hear me? Then how will A respond to me? Absolutely, A will give no response to me, because A is deaf, it can hear nothing. Right? Ok, then when I ask B: Can you hear me? Then how will B respond to me? It is logic that B will answer: YES! Because B is not deaf, so it can actually hear what I said. It doesn't make sense if an individual with good hearing to reply "NO" to the said question!

wtylys

I got your point, but what confuses me is that why the answer D can be explained by the explanation of the passage?

sanlingjie

I got your point, but what confuses me is that why the answer D can be explained by the explanation of the passage?

-- by 会员 wtylys (2011/7/16 10:59:21)

In my view, for C, if we hypothesise that the explanation given by the theorists is true, i.e. we suppose that it is a fact 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. Therefore, the DEAF PART of the self will actually affect the thinking or behaviors (Appear to accept that they are deaf) of the hypnotized subjects, because our behaviors are in fact commanded by our consciousness or something like SELF. So the OG said that THE THEORISTS' EXPLANATION, IF TRUE, CAN HELP ANSWER THIS QUESTION, SO THIS CHALLENGE DOES NOT INDICATE A WEAKNESS.
For D, for the same reason, the REPLY PART of the self will affect the REPLY METHOD of the hypnotized subjects, therefore, the subjects will reply in the same way under the influence of the REPLY PART.

The above is my personal views, only for your reference.

sanlingjie

BTW, I think this CR question perhaps involves some knowledge of philosophy.