In my letter to you I will explain key terms and concepts about a recent scientific experiment at the University of Iowa so that you may comprehend my argument. To begin with, let me explain the study. In this experiment, researchers tested the effect of a new drug on treating speech deficiencies. They gave the real pill to a group of patients of a professional speech therapist who helps aspiring actors overcome their stutters. The sugar pill was given to a group of child patients to a psychologist that specializes in treating delayed verbal development in youth. What researchers found was that after a month the control group reported no change, while the experimental group generally reported improvement, as well as an odd side-effect of decreased mobility in the left side of the body. Now I will attempt to break down the elements of this research and …show more content…
Firstly, this was experimental, not correlational research. There is a big difference between the two. Experimental research tries to uncover the cause of something by introducing a change and then observing its effects. Often times there is a group that receives treatment and a group that receives a placebo. Correlational research by definition cannot speak on the cause of something. It does not introduce a change but rather attempts to observe a relationship between two naturally occurring variables. Secondly, the scientists began with a hypothesis: a testable prediction that is expressible in an experiment. This study’s hypothesis is that a new drug, by temporarily stimulating certain regions of the brain’s frontal lobe, can treat speech deficiencies. Thirdly, in order to be an experiment a study must have an independent and dependent variable. In this case the independent variable, or what is manipulated, is the drug administration. The