Scientists proposed the hypothesis: Consumption of Omega-3 fatty acid can reduce the size of cancerous tumors. the following hyp
othesis was tested. a sample of 500 rats with tumors was collected. within this sample size, 250 rats were feed with omega-3 (group 1) while the raining 250 rats were not (group 2). after one month of periodically feeding group 1 with omega-3 fatty acid, rat autospies were taken for both groups. the average changes of tumor size were measured and recorded. p value was .04. average change of tumor size group 1 -.124g group 2 -.012g. based on the results from the experiments, which of the following is the best conclusion?a. Consumption of Omega-3 fatty acid decreases the size of previous cancerous tumors with statistical significance. Correctb. Consumption of Omega-3 fatty acid has no effect on decreasing the size of previous cancerous tumors.c. Absence of Omega-3 fatty acid in the diet directly decreases the size of previous cancerous tumors.d. Absence of Omega-3 fatty acid in the diet decreases the size of previous cancerous tumors with statistical significance.e. Consumption of Omega-3 fatty acid directly decreases the size of previous cancerous tumors.
In a laboratory test such as this, when you obtain a p Value of less than 0.5 you conclude that there is a significant difference between the treatment and the control and thus you reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, with a p Value of 4 and observing that the rats that received Omega 3 had a bigger reduction in their cancerous tumors, we conclude that the treatment with Omega 3 decreased the size of previous cancerous tumors and that this effect was statistically significant.
Because some could cause an outbreak but some such as lets say pneumonia or bronchitis isn’t really contagious and therefore it won’t start a widespread pandemic i literally made that up so if it’s right then YUP
