we do not reject the null hypothesis.

The critical value approach involves determining "likely" or "unlikely" by determining whether or not the observed test statistic is more extreme than would be expected if the null hypothesis were true. That is, it entails comparing the observed test statistic to some cutoff value, called the "critical value." If the test statistic is more extreme than the critical value, then the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If the test statistic is not as extreme as the critical value, then the null hypothesis is not rejected.

otherwise we do not reject the null hypothesis

If we do not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, we will continue as before.

if we reject the null hypothesis, we conclude that: ..

There are different ways of doing statistics. The technique used by the vast majority of biologists, and the technique that most of this handbook describes, is sometimes called "frequentist" or "classical" statistics. It involves testing a null hypothesis by comparing the data you observe in your experiment with the predictions of a null hypothesis. You estimate what the probability would be of obtaining the observed results, or something more extreme, if the null hypothesis were true. If this estimated probability (the P value) is small enough (below the significance value), then you conclude that it is unlikely that the null hypothesis is true; you reject the null hypothesis and accept an alternative hypothesis.

Dec 12, 2008 · If we conclude "Do not reject ..

There is one more point we haven't stressed yet in our discussion about the correlation coefficient r and the coefficient of determination r2 — namely, the two measures summarize the strength of a linear relationship in samples only. If we obtained a different sample, we would obtain different correlations, different r2 values, and therefore potentially different conclusions. As always, we want to draw conclusions about populations, not just samples. To do so, we either have to conduct a hypothesis test or calculate a confidence interval. In this section, we learn how to conduct a hypothesis test for the population correlation coefficient ρ (the greek letter "rho").

Could we reject the null hypothesis if we wanted to be 99% confident that wewill not make a type I error (e.g alpha =0.01).
then we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the difference is statistically significant.

Start studying Hypothesis Testing

The output tells us that the probability of getting a test-statistic smaller than 35.39 is greater than 0.999. Therefore, the probability of getting a test-statistic greater than 35.39 is less than 0.001. As illustrated in this , we multiply by 2 and determine that the P-value is less than 0.002. Since the P-value is small — smaller than 0.05, say — we can reject the null hypothesis. There is sufficient statistical evidence at the α = 0.05 level to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between a husband's age and his wife's age.

Answer to If we do not reject the null hypothesis, we conclude that: A

we reject the null hypothesis, we conclude that

The primary goal of a statistical test is to determine whether an observed data set is so different from what you would expect under the null hypothesis that you should reject the null hypothesis. For example, let's say you are studying sex determination in chickens. For breeds of chickens that are bred to lay lots of eggs, female chicks are more valuable than male chicks, so if you could figure out a way to manipulate the sex ratio, you could make a lot of chicken farmers very happy. You've fed chocolate to a bunch of female chickens (in birds, unlike mammals, the female parent determines the sex of the offspring), and you get 25 female chicks and 23 male chicks. Anyone would look at those numbers and see that they could easily result from chance; there would be no reason to reject the null hypothesis of a 1:1 ratio of females to males. If you got 47 females and 1 male, most people would look at those numbers and see that they would be extremely unlikely to happen due to luck, if the null hypothesis were true; you would reject the null hypothesis and conclude that chocolate really changed the sex ratio. However, what if you had 31 females and 17 males? That's definitely more females than males, but is it really so unlikely to occur due to chance that you can reject the null hypothesis? To answer that, you need more than common sense, you need to calculate the probability of getting a deviation that large due to chance.

Hypothesis Testing The null and alternative ..

It is important to distinguish between biological null and alternative hypotheses and statistical null and alternative hypotheses. "Sexual selection by females has caused male chickens to evolve bigger feet than females" is a biological alternative hypothesis; it says something about biological processes, in this case sexual selection. "Male chickens have a different average foot size than females" is a statistical alternative hypothesis; it says something about the numbers, but nothing about what caused those numbers to be different. The biological null and alternative hypotheses are the first that you should think of, as they describe something interesting about biology; they are two possible answers to the biological question you are interested in ("What affects foot size in chickens?"). The statistical null and alternative hypotheses are statements about the data that should follow from the biological hypotheses: if sexual selection favors bigger feet in male chickens (a biological hypothesis), then the average foot size in male chickens should be larger than the average in females (a statistical hypothesis). If you reject the statistical null hypothesis, you then have to decide whether that's enough evidence that you can reject your biological null hypothesis. For example, if you don't find a significant difference in foot size between male and female chickens, you could conclude "There is no significant evidence that sexual selection has caused male chickens to have bigger feet." If you do find a statistically significant difference in foot size, that might not be enough for you to conclude that sexual selection caused the bigger feet; it might be that males eat more, or that the bigger feet are a developmental byproduct of the roosters' combs, or that males run around more and the exercise makes their feet bigger. When there are multiple biological interpretations of a statistical result, you need to think of additional experiments to test the different possibilities.