Short term classes: does taking a class in a short-term format (8 weeks instead of 16 weeks) increase a student’s likelihood of passing the course? for a particular course, the pass rate for the 16-week format is 59%. a team of faculty examine student data from 40 randomly selected accelerated classes and determine that the pass rate is 78%. which of the following are the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses for this research question? group of answer choices(a) h0: p = 0.59; ha: p ≠ 0.59(b) h0: p = 0.59; ha: p > 0.59(c) h0: p = 0.78; ha: p ≠ 0.78(d) h0: p = 0.78; ha: p > 0.59

C) is the most appropriate.

Step-by-step explanation:

The pass rate for the 16-week format was obtained for only one particular course, whereas the pass rate for the 8-week format was obtained by examining 40 randomly selected, so should be  

:“The pass rate is p=0.78”

and  

: ““The pass rate is p<0.78”

But, from among the possible answers of choice, C) is the most suitable.

:“The pass rate is p=0.78”

and  

: ““The pass rate is p≠0.78”

The null and alternative hypothesis should be:

(Option B)

Step-by-step explanation:

We have to determine the hypothesis accordingly to the claim we want to test.

In this case, we claim that taking a class in short-term format increase a student's likelihood of passing the course.

The null hypothesis is then that the likelihood stays the same, that is equal to 59% (the long-term likelihood of passing).

The alternative hypothesis, that is our claim based on the sample result (p=78%), is that the likelihood is bigger than 59%.

Then we can write:

i don't even know man. edge inuity be messing with us. i had to ask a question too.