In an experiment, two different types of recorded music were played fo

I understand that neonate is A newborn infant, especially one less than four weeks old. A neonate can still be premature. A premature baby is one that is born before the full 9 months. I feel that it is safe to assume that premature babies have some sort of deficiencies, with out picking the exact deficiencies

This is a strengthen Q and it can add evidence/premises or establish assumptions.

Looking at the Q again

Which of the following additional experimental data would support the hypothesis that classical music is beneficial to the development of newborn?

asks for data that supports the hypothesis that CM is beneficial to development of new borns.

B is stronger to me compared to C

(1) B compares neonates who heard music vs neonates who heard music

(2) In B neonates with deficiencies are doing well after hearing music


In C

(1) Comparison is between neonates who heard music and who did not hear music at all

Can we compare neonates who heard music and who did not hear any music and deduce that music was beneficial to one group?

What is the OA?

I think you've bolded the wrong word here. I look at the conclusion as follows:

"CM is beneficial to the development of newborns."

The experimental data could support two findings:

1) CM is beneficial to the development of newborns;
2) Rock music is detrimental to the development of newborns.

How to decide between the two conclusions? Use a control group of newborns- a group that has no music played to them. If they develop worse than the Classical music group, this supports the finding that Classical music was indeed beneficial. C.

Ian,

Thanks for your explanation. I missed underlining the beneficial part along with development

You said

The experimental data could support two findings:

1) CM is beneficial to the development of newborns; ( I agree )
2) Rock music is detrimental to the development of newborns. ( My thought is RM did not make any difference to group B. B says CM was played to group A and A has premature babies. )

We don't know what RM did to group B, but we know that CM has the power to make premature babies healthy in 3 different aspects. If I am wrong, which I am apparently as the OA is C, I am wondering assuming premature babies possibly will have some deficiencies is the reason for my wrong answer.

Thanks to the OP for a good Q +1

I was a bit quick with neonates !!! My apologies.

Icandy,
But B remains out of scope , as the stage of babies of babies is not being discussed. I mean
point here is not to prove if CM is have +ve effect on Premature baby it is a proof that it
has better effect on Normal babies.
The group having more Premature Babies doesn't support conclusion.

Conclusion : CM -->(beneficial) New Born.

The option C is more just for the conclusion , as it eliminates a major factor ( No Music ) from
breaking the conclusion.

I get A.

We are looking for the answer that tells us that the results of the experiment are due to the music and nothing else.

A. The neonates in a nursery where no music was played fared better than those in nursery B.
This indicates that music affects the babies. Correct
B. Nursery A contained 15 percent more premature babies than nursery B.
This provides another reason for the results.
C. The newborns in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did newborns in a nursery with no music.
This is a restatement of given information.
D. The music played in nursery A was louder than that played in nursery B.
This provides another reason for the results. Maybe loudness and not the type in beneficial.
E. The ratio of nurses to newborns in nursery B was 1 to 4; in nursery A, it was 1 to 6.
This provides another outside reason for the results.

asked for additional experimental data...C provides us with a completely new experiment.bcz the original experiment contains only nurseries A and B..Here in C, we are talking about a completely new experiment which has nursery A and another nursery with no music.

Between B and C ...i choose B

I read too fast and missed the end of C.

C. The newborns in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did newborns in a nursery with no music.

After looking at it this is the correct answer. It shows that classical music is beneficial.

We have 2 hyothesis
X- blah blah.....with classical music
Y - blah blah.....rock music
To benchmark these we need a 3rd reference.
C exactly does that by evaluating the scenario with "no music"

C

In an experiment, two different types of recorded music were played for neonates in adjacent nurseries in a hospital. In nursery A, classical music was played; in nursery B, rock music was played. After two weeks, it was found that the babies in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did the babies in nursery B.

Which of the following additional experimental data would support the hypothesis that classical music is beneficial to the development of newborn?

(A) The neonates in a nursery where no music was played fared better than those in nursery B. - This is out of scope, since we need to see the affect of classical music on babies.
(B) Nursery A contained 15 percent more premature babies than nursery B. - This merely reinforces the fact that classical music is better than rock music. It does not provides any additional info as required by question.
(C) The newborns in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did newborns in a nursery with no music. - Now in the argument we are told that classical music is better than rock music. And this option states that classical music is also better than no music - Additional experimental data - Correct.
(D) The music played in nursery A was louder than that played in nursery B. - This is again out of scope since volume is not what we should consider. We need to see the affects of classical music.
(E) The ratio of nurses to newborns in nursery B was 1 to 4; in nursery A, it was 1 to 6. - Out of scope.



Please give kudos if it all makes sense !

My take is that C negates the possibility that classical music is actually bad for newborns but is less worse than rock music, hence it looked better in comparison to rock music. However when this new data shows that classical is actually better than no music, that means it is having a positive effect on the babies. So C is good.

In an experiment, two different types of recorded music were played for neonates in adjacent nurseries in a hospital. In nursery A, classical music was played; in nursery B, rock music was played. After two weeks, it was found that the babies in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did the babies in nursery B.

Which of the following additional experimental data would support the hypothesis that classical music is beneficial to the development of newborn?

Well, to support the hypothesis, one information that might help us is whether the sample space was similar for both the experiments. But that would only help us compare the classical-music-effect with the rock-music-effect. There can be two facets:
(1) The classical music might be beneficial to the development of the newborn
(2) The classical music might not have any effect at all but the rock music might have a negative effect on the growth of the newborn.

In order to establish the fact that the classical music has a positive effect on the development of the newborn, we need a set up where the growth of the newborns under classical music environment is compared with the growth of newborns under no such environment. Of course considering "newborns" as a uniform sample space.


(A) The neonates in a nursery where no music was played fared better than those in nursery B. This doesn't establish any relation with the nursery A. The one thing that we can infer from this option is that there might be some deteriorating effect of rock music on the growth of the newborns.

(B) Nursery A contained 15 percent more premature babies than nursery B. Since this option brings in the idea of premature babies, we now know that the sample space is not uniform i.e. all the babies are not "same". So the groups can be biased and thus won't produce the results to prove the hypothesis.

(C) The newborns in nursery A cried less, suffered fewer minor ailments, and gained more weight than did newborns in a nursery with no music. So here we make a comparison between the classical-music-newborns with the newborns that were not exposed to any music.

(D) The music played in nursery A was louder than that played in nursery B. Pretty much out of context of the problem.

(E) The ratio of nurses to newborns in nursery B was 1 to 4; in nursery A, it was 1 to 6. Pretty much out of context of the problem.

Thus, option C.

PS: You already provided the answer while copying the options from the source.

Great question and very well thought out.

Although, I do feel like having a background on knowing how unbiased research works informs your answer here. I wonder if the playing ground here is level for all participants. If I had no knowledge of the fundamentals of controls in experimentation, then would I arrive at this answer as easily.

Certainly doesn't seem exactly unbiased of your knowledge or background on the concepts being discussed.