I would say 4. To create a hypothesis, you would need some knowledge about what you're studying. This is where prior knowledge could come in handy.
Answer: alternative A.
Explanation: In this case, we will consider people that already have had a heart attack. In this specific group of 1,000 people, 236 exercised regularly and had gone through this situation.
We can infer that 23.6% of people who exercised regularly have experienced that by dividing 236/1,000= 0.236= 23.6%.
If 236 people exercised, 1,000-236=764 didn't exercise regularly prior to their heart attacks, so 74.6% were considered to be sedentary.
If there's 0.236 chance out of 1 to exercise and still have a heart attack compared to 0.764 out of 1 to be sedentary and have the same experience, we can divide both ratios to compare them, so 0.236/0.764= 0.3089.
Alternative A claims that people who exercise have around 0.5 chance of having heart attacks compared to people who don't. Since our ratio resulted in 0.3089, we consider this number the closest to 0.5. Alternative <u>B is absurd because in order for people who exercise to have 2x the risk compared to people who don't, the number of people who exercised and went through that must be 2x bigger than people who didn't</u>. Alternative <u>C doesn't apply as well, because we already verified that the chance people who exercise have a heart attack equal to 23,6%. </u>
<u />
The correct answer is random fertilization.
Together with crossing over and independent assortment, random fertilization represents the way by which sexually reproduction contributes to genetic variation. <span>Random fertilization refers to the random event of fertilization when there is no way in knowing which sperm will fertilise which egg (64 trillion possible combinations of genes that can occur during fertilization). Any sperm cell from the male can fuse with any egg cell from the female.</span>
