A canidatate for governor of a certain state claims to be favored by at least half of the voters. If a hypothesis test is performed, how should you interpret a decision that rejects the null hypothesis?
A. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim > or = 0.5
B. There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim > or = 0.5
C. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim > or = 0.5
D. There is sufficinet evidence to support the claim > or = 0.5
Do you have the carats (>) facing in the right direction?
> = is greater than, < = is less than
To reject the null hypothesis, you would want sufficient evidence that P ≤ .05.
I love reading these articles because they're short but inofmartvie.
To interpret a decision that rejects the null hypothesis in a hypothesis test, we need to understand the context and the hypothesis being tested. In this case, the null hypothesis would be that the candidate for governor is favored by exactly half (50%) of the voters.
If the decision rejects the null hypothesis, it means that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the claim of being favored by at least half of the voters is true. In other words, the data and statistical analysis have provided enough support to conclude that the candidate is indeed favored by more than 50% of the voters.
Given the options provided, the correct interpretation would be:
B. There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim ≥ 0.5
This choice accurately describes the situation where the null hypothesis is rejected, supporting the claim that the candidate is favored by more than half of the voters.