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 separte 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 avobe?
(a)Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"?
(b)Why are the ovserved 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?
答案是A选项， 我的疑问是题目中所给出的“失聪区和回答区是分离的”理论不是恰好能解释A么？因为是分离的，所以不会回答“Yes”。
忘好心人解答~谢谢啦~作者: yorku 时间: 2012-9-17 20:39
题目原句是the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
看了reasoning我觉得是有一些隐含意思的:
1.被催眠者自己被分成了两个部分，句子中提到deaf part, indicates还有一个部分，即hearing part
2.deaf part和reply part是分离的，indicates hearing part和reply part是相联系的
根据句子意思，被催眠者回答问题的时候就是启用了hearing part（ 因为很明显，如果启用的是deaf part.那么，被催眠者应该听不到，就不会有回答）。
weaken：既然启用的是hearing part,那么，被催眠者听到了问题，回答应该是YES.
结论和原结论相悖，那么就不是启用的hearing part，但是根据explaination人只分成两个部分，这里不是启用hearing part也不是启用deaf part,那究竟是启用了什么使得大家都回答NO?无从解释，这样整个explaination削弱了
我觉得这个题目问的是对explaination的削弱，所以重点不是针对“deaf part和reply part是不是分离了”进行削弱，而是对这个explaination整体进行削弱。当这个explaination无法形成正确逻辑推出结论，这些细节是不是削弱了都不重要。
所以这道题其实是通过对隐含内容的削弱来达到削弱整体的作用。
个人观点，求大N拍砖！！！
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/forum/)
