To support this claim, gathered 10 people as his sample and administered the fol

Question

To support this claim, gathered 10 people as his sample and administered the following: when a participant reports sleepiness, the participant drinks a can of energy drink (5 of the 10 people had energy drink and the other 5 had a Red Bull® energy drink), and timed how long from then the participant were able to stay focused working on simple calculation problems. The time for each participant is reported below (in minutes). Red Bull® 125 95 140 155 150 135 95 80 65 50 set H0: µ(john) µ(Red Bull) (No improved average focus with energy drink) and H1: µ(john) > µ(Red Bull) (Average focus is longer with Bumble’s energy drink) Upon hearing that a dependent-sample (paired-sample) t-test is more powerful in detecting the possible difference, john ran the dependent-sample test and found the p = 0.089 as the result. After he saw the result, in order to reject H0, john then set = 0.10, and since now p < , he rejected H0 concluding that his energy drink is superior. Q: Please identify what john did wrong (if anything) and provide the correct work and results for each of john mistake identified by answering the questions (on the link).

Explanation / Answer

Answer-

His action of chosing level of significance equal to 0.1 was biased towards satisfying his own claim.

Level of significance is the probability of type 1 error which is equal to probability of rejecting null hypothesis when it is true and thus it is to be minimised.

Here John after seeing the p-value, chose higher level of significance in order to reject the null hypothesis.

This is what he did wrong. At 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis won't be rejected and thus conclusion would be No improved average focus with energy drink.

Answer

TY!

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

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