Question

Question 12 Y < > 91 Details 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? Because we would be interested in any difference between running on hard and soft surfaces, we should use a two-sided hypothesis test. 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. Because there is uncertainty, we should postpone defining the hypotheses until after we collect data to guide the test. The first position is more sensible, so this should be a one-sided test. In this case, we should form the alternative hypothesis around the second position.

Answer 1

According to article which says, running on soft surfaces could be hard, which signifies that softsurfaces are poor than hard one.

So if first position favors soft surface while the second favours hard one and the article favours the hard one, so as per testing the claim of article, our study must be one tailed fovouring the hard surface or the second position. So the option to be chosen could be B.

Thanks .