Scenario: Researchers posted ads in the newspaper to recruit participants for their study of a new treatment for agoraphobia (the fear of open places). 87 people responded to the ad, but only 60 of those actually reported being agoraphobics. Of the sixty, 20 were randomly placed in a condition (NEW) in which they received the new treatment. It was explained to the NEW participants that the treatment they would be receiving was promising but new, so they would be monitored carefully to watch for any undesirable side effects. Twenty other participants were assigned to a condition (OLD) in which they received an older, more traditional form of treatment. These participants were told that they were not receiving the new treatment but an older treatment that had been around for awhile, so the chances of side effects were minimal. Finally, 20 other participants were randomly assigned to a group (NO) that received no therapy. After six months of treatment, researchers found that the participants in the NEW condition were exhibiting 64% fewer symptoms of agoraphobia than before they started the treatment. Participants in the OLD condition were exhibiting 42% fewer symptoms, and participants who did not receive therapy exhibited 22% fewer symptoms than six months ago. Researchers were pleased with the results, concluding in an article they were writing that a new treatment had been found that will be more successful with agoraphobics than previous treatments.

Question #1- do you agree with the conclusion of the researchers? write a paragraph describing an alternative explanation for the result

Question 2- also write a paragraph describing how the experiment might have been designed so as to rule out the alternative explanation that you provided ​