Question

A large study showed that aspirin reduced the rate of first heart attacks. A pharmaceutical company thinks that they have a drug that will be more effective than aspirin, and plans to do a randomized clinical trial to test the new drug. They determine the following null and alternative hypotheses: Example 2: a) Ho: the new drug is not more effective than aspirin HA: the new drug is more effective than aspirin hey conduct the trial. The group that used the new drug had fewer heart attacks than those in the aspirin group. The P-value from the hypothesis test was 0.004. What would you conclude? b) The drug Lipitor is meant to reduce cholesterol. A side effect of this drug is flulike symptoms in some people. Suppose that l .9% of patients taking a competing drug experience flulike symptoms. A clinical trial is planned to test if flulike symptoms occur in a greater proportion of patients using Lipitor than patients using the competing drug. The null and alternative hypotheses are Ho: p 0.019 HA: p> 0.019 where p represents the population proportion of Lipitor patients who experience flulike symptoms. They conduct a clinical trial with 863 patients, 2.2% of the patients in this sample experience flulike symptoms. The P-value from the hypothesis test is 0.2578. Is this strong enough evidence to conclude that more than 1.9% of all patients using Lipitor experience flulike symptoms? If the null hypothesis were true, would it be reasonable to conclude that this sample statistic could have occurred by random chance?

Answer 1

Ex (2)(a)We reject the null hypothesis, since P- value 0.004 is less than the level of significance o-0.05 Therefore, there is enough evidennce to condlude that the new drug is more effective than aspirin. (b) We fail to reject the null hypothesis, since P- value 0.2578 is greater than the level of significance α 0.05 No, there is no strong enough evidence to conclude that more than 1.9%of all patients using Lipitor experience flulike symptoms