The passage and the lecture discuss the theory called the Mozart Effects. The passage suggests that the Mozart Effect has a positive impact on the future development of children whose mother's listened to Mozart when they were in utero. On the other hand, the lecture claims that the passage’s suggestion is wrong, and the Mozart Effect does not impact babies’ development.

First, according to the passage, Mozart’s music improves intelligence. The passage supports this claim with a study in which participants listened to Mozart. According to the study, all the participants showed better scores on tests, and also their IQs went up by nine points. However, the lecture refutes this the passage's claims around the study's conclusions are inaccurate. The lecture states that the participants of the study were all college students, not babies. Additionally, the IQs of those who listened to Mozart’s music were only elevated for fifteen minutes.

Second, the passage states that listening to Mozart’s music promotes creativity for babies. The passage says that playing Mozart for babies before they are born helps them to become more imaginative as adults. Again, the lecturer disagrees. He claims that there is no scientific research that is supporting the passage’s claims. Additionally, the lecture also says it is more likely to be a marketing tool for expectant parents, since there are no scientific proof.

To sum up, the passage says that listening to Mozart’s music has positive effects on babies while the lecture rebuts this. The lecture points out that the study supporting the passage’s theory is unreliable, and also points out there is no scientific proof that playing Mozart music affects babies’ future creativity. Furthermore, the lecture concludes that the passage’s claim is a case of correlation not causation

The passage and the lecture discuss the theory called the Mozart Effect. The passage suggests that the Mozart Effect has a positive impact on the future development of children whose mothers’ listened to Mozart when they were in utero. On the other hand, the lecture claims that the passage’s suggestion is wrong, and the Mozart Effect does not impact babies’ future development.

First, according to the passage, Mozart’s music improves intelligence. The passage supports this claim with a study in which participants listened to Mozart. According to the study, all the participants showed better scores on tests, and also their IQs went up by nine points. However, the lecture refutes this by saying the passage's claims around the study's conclusions are inaccurate. The lecture states that the participants of the study were all college students, not babies. Additionally, the IQ points of those who listened to Mozart’s music were only elevated for fifteen minutes.

Second, the passage states that listening to Mozart’s music promotes creativity for babies. The passage says that playing Mozart for babies before they are born helps them to become more imaginative as adults. Again, the lecturer disagrees. He claims that there is no scientific research that is supporting the passage’s claims. Additionally, the lecture also says it is more likely to be a marketing tool directed at expectant parents, since there is no scientific proof.

To sum up, the passage says that listening to Mozart’s music has positive effects on babies while the lecture rebuts this. The lecture points out that the study supporting the passage’s theory is unreliable, and also points out there is no scientific proof that playing Mozart music affects babies’ future creativity. Furthermore, the lecture concludes that the passage’s claim is a case of correlation not causation