A chemical company has invented a new kind of pesticide that can be used on food

Question

A chemical company has invented a new kind of pesticide that can be used on food crops such as fruit trees. However, some environmental groups have raised concerns that the pesticide is harmful for humans if ingested on unwashed fruit. In your opinion, should the manufacturer of a new pesticide carry the burden of proof that the pesticide is not harmful, or should the EPA (environmental protection agency) carry the burden of proof that the pesticide is harmful? Explain your reasoning Formulate the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis (in words) that correspond to your answer in part a Define a type I and type II error in the context of this problem corresponding to your definition of null and alternative hypothesis in part (a).

Explanation / Answer

a)It is more harmful when we conclude that pesticides are not harmful when it is harmful. So, the manufacturer should carry the burden of proof that the pesticides is not harmful.

b) The null hypothesis is that the pesticides is harmful for humans against alternative hypothesis that the pesticid is not harmful for the humans.

c) Type I error is when we conclude that pesticides are not harmful when it is harmful i.e, we reject the null hypothesis when it is true.

And type II error is when we conclude that pesticides are harmful when it is not, i.e, we fail to reject the null hypothesis when it is not true.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.