Question

A very large study showed that aspirin reduced the rate of first heart attacks by 54%. A pharmaceutical company thinks it has a drug that will be more effective than aspirin, and conducts a randomized clinical trial to test the new drug versus aspirin. The group using the new drug had somewhat fewer heart attacks than those in the aspirin group. The company tests the null hypothesis that the new drug is not more effective than aspirin against the alternative hypothesis that it is more effective than aspirin. Complete parts a and b below. a) The P-value from the hypothesis test was 0.39. What do you conclude? A. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large. B. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large. C. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small. D. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small. b) What would you have concluded if the P-value had been 0.014? A. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small. B. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small. C. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large. D. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large.

A very large study showed that aspirin reduced the rate of first heart attacks by 54%. A pharmaceutical company thinks it has a drug that will be more effective than aspirin, and conducts a
randomized clinical trial to test the new drug versus aspirin. The group using the new drug had somewhat fewer heart attacks than those in the aspirin group. The company tests the null
hypothesis that the new drug is not more effective than aspirin against the alternative hypothesis that it is more effective than aspirin. Complete parts a and b below.
a) The P-value from the hypothesis test was 0.39. What do you conclude?
A. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large.
B. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large.
C. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small.
D. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small.
b) What would you have concluded if the P-value had been 0.014?
A. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small.
B. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so small.
C. There is evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large.
D. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin because the P-value was so large.

Added by Robert T.

Question

Please give Ace some feedback