A New York Times article titled For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body considered two perspectives on whether runners should stick to hard surfaces or soft surfaces following an injury. One position supported running on soft surfaces to relieve joints that were in recovery from injury. The second position supported running on hard surfaces since soft surfaces can be uneven, which may make worse those injuries a soft surface was intended to help. Suppose we are given sufficient funds to run an experiment to study this topic. With no studies to support either position, which of the following hypotheses would be appropriate? A.The second position makes the more sense, so this should be a one-sided test. In this case, we should form the alternative hypothesis around the first position.B. The first position is more sensible, so this should postpone defining the hypotheses until after we collect data to guide the rest.C. Because there is uncertainty, we should postpone defining the hypotheses until after we collect data to guide the test.D. Because we would be interested in any difference between running on hard and soft surfaces, we should use a two-sided hypothesis test
Accepted Solution
A:
Answer:D. Because we would be interested in any difference between running on hard and soft surfaces, we should use a two-sided hypothesis testStep-by-step explanation:Hello!When planning what kind of hypothesis to use, you have to take into account any other studies that were made about that topic so that you can decide the orientation you will give them. Normally, when there is no other information available to give an orientation to your experiment, the first step to take is to make a two-tailed test, for example, μ₁=μ₂ vs. μ₁≠μ₂, this way you can test whether there is any difference between the two stands. Only after having experimental evidence that there is any difference between the treatments is there any sense into testing which one is better than the other.I hope you have a SUPER day!