Q8 - Many uses have been claimed for hypnosis, from combatin

[smiller]

Question Type:
Inference

Stimulus Breakdown:
There's a lot of information in the stimulus. Unlike some Inference questions, this doesn't contain statements that we can clearly link together, like chains of conditional statements. One significant fact is that one group—the group that was asked about a film—described something that didn't happen.

Answer Anticipation:
Since there aren't any clear links in the stimulus that are likely to form the basis for a correct answer, we have to look at each answer choice and compare it to the relevant information in the stimulus.

Correct Answer:
(D)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "Overstated" is unsupported. The stimulus describes a supposed connection between hypnosis and power of recall, but we don't even know exactly what is claimed about that connection, so we don't know if the claim is overstated.

(B) This is also unsupported. We only know that subjects in one study recalled something that didn't happen. We can't make a more general inference about whether or not hypnosis can increase recall.

(C) "Inevitably" is too strong. We know that subjects under hypnosis sometimes experience false memories, but we don't know that this always happens.

(D) This is the correct answer. The stimulus doesn't prove that suggestion influenced what the subjects recalled, but there is some support for that. Remember, the question stem is only asking for what is most supported.

(E) This is an unsupported comparison. The stimulus is about subjects who have a false memory of seeing something, but this doesn't tell us if visual memory is truly "enhanced" more than auditory memory.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an Inference question asks for the answer that is most supported, focus on eliminating answers that are demonstrably wrong.

#officialexplanation

[ttunden]

Hello

I got the right answer but would like some clarity on this question. So, I understand it's a soft must be true(inference) and the stimulus is primarily a bunch of facts.

We have a study of two groups under hypnosis and the author says the study helps illuminate the connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall.

So, here is my analysis of the answer choices.
A- this was tempting but I don't know based on the stimulus, if many of the claims made on behalf of hypnosis are Overstated. The study just illustrates one claim made on behalf of hypnosis and it doesn't appear to be overstated. just kept it for now.

B- eliminate because we cannot infer this. Maybe it does significantly increase a person's power of recall. The stimulus allows this to occur.

C- Way too strong. "inevitably" makes this answer choice incorrect. Eliminate.

D- this looks good and was illustrated by the 2nd group of the study. this is our answer.

E- never saw auditory memory mentioned in the stimulus so I can't infer this comparison that is stated in this answer choice. Eliminate.

If you have anything more to add, feel free to do so.
Thanks

[tara_amber1]

In regards to your explanation for (E), auditory memory is what the first half of subjects were solely asked to rely on. So we don't eliminate (E) for the reason you stated, but instead eliminate it because it goes against what the results were in the argument. The subjects that drew visual memory from listening to a piece of music were able to recall just as much as the subjects in the first group were able to recall music from the piece of music. So it's not true that one is enhanced more than the other. It's implied that hypnosis can enhance visual memory just as much as auditory memory.

[lissethbayona]

I was between (A) and (D) on this question but ultimately picked (D) because I didn't like the "overstated" part of (A). Now I think I have a better idea as to why it's wrong.

To "overstate" something means to exaggerate but we don't know that either group exaggerated. We just know that each group was equally as detailed and confident as one another. We also know that the second group MISSTATED their movie recollections because they didn't really see a movie but that's not the same as OVERSTATING.

[BarryM800]

I was really bogged down by the stimulus. The author introduces this experimental study to "help illuminate" the supposed (positive) connection between hypnosis, but it sounds to me that the data suggest it actually disproves such connection.

Also, the goal of the experimental study is to prove, or as it turns out to disprove, the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall, but both groups of subjects were hypnotized. Wouldn't that be a design flaw to begin with?

In addition, the data concern "confidence and detailedness of recollection," as opposed to "accuracy." So I don't think the author's presentation of the experiment touches upon "power of recall" at all.

Furthermore, the fact that the subjects in the second group were equally confident and detailed in their movie recollections, though they had not seen a film, as the first group in their music recollections, is grounds for false recollection, which seems to indicate that hypnosis does not increase power of recall, if not decrease it due to the false recollections.

Lastly, is the reason why (A) is incorrect the difference between "some" and "many"? The fact that the subjects in the second group recalled a film that they did not see while under hypnosis supports the claim that the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall is overstated, but that finding, which qualifies for "some," would not qualify for "many," which is plural, requiring at least "two"? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I was really bogged down by the stimulus. The author introduces this experimental study to "help illuminate" the supposed (positive) connection between hypnosis, but it sounds to me that the data suggest it actually disproves such connection.

Also, the goal of the experimental study is to prove, or as it turns out to disprove, the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall, but both groups of subjects were hypnotized. Wouldn't that be a design flaw to begin with?

In addition, the data concern "confidence and detailedness of recollection," as opposed to "accuracy." So I don't think the author's presentation of the experiment touches upon "power of recall" at all.

Furthermore, the fact that the subjects in the second group were equally confident and detailed in their movie recollections, though they had not seen a film, as the first group in their music recollections, is grounds for false recollection, which seems to indicate that hypnosis does not increase power of recall, if not decrease it due to the false recollections.

Lastly, is the reason why (A) is incorrect the difference between "some" and "many"? The fact that the subjects in the second group recalled a film that they did not see while under hypnosis supports the claim that the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall is overstated, but that finding, which qualifies for "some," would not qualify for "many," which is plural, requiring at least "two"? Thanks!

There's definitely a lot going on in this stimulus, and it can be hard to digest. For Inference questions, though, we need to accept all the information in the stimulus as true, then look for the answer that best follows from that information. So I wouldn't spent time looking for flaws in the info given, however incomplete it may be.

Answer choice A can be eliminated on the basis of overstated. We don't have any information in the stimulus about the claims and whether or not we can say they're overstated.