63. 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?
正解是A
既然A对了为什么D不对?文中解释说deaf和reply部分没关系,那应该不会都只回答no,应该可能回答no,yes,不回答。。。等等各种可能。
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described? D正好指出了这一点 why all respond in the same way,而这一点是文中的explaination无法解释的,那不就是答案了吗?实在不解,求助,谢谢。作者: abixiaoxinyue 时间: 2011-2-15 20:16
题干中theorist的解释是被催眠的人的意识被分成了“deaf part”和“the part that replies the question”.
按照这个逻辑,被催眠的人在回答问题“can you hear me?”时,回答应该是“yes。”因为如果“deaf part”起作用的,回答才应该是“no”作者: missouyangs 时间: 2011-2-18 07:24
For D, the question will bring too many unnecessary variables of the objects to consider, such as the age; hence the "same answer" is not close to "two separate parts"
For A, you have to show the answer to " why not yes" is related to what has been asked; therefore the two parts may be connected.作者: dontwannalos 时间: 2011-2-19 09:01
tks all above. Flyincat's expl is quite clear for me, allowing for the confused point is that the objects in question are not deaf indeed.作者: sunflower88 时间: 2011-2-19 21:08
赞,回答得真好!
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)