In a study of the effects of diet on blood pressure, one group of 85 people followed a vegetarian diet for 4 months, after which time their mean systolic blood pressure was 15 mm hg lower than at the start. another group of 75 people followed a nonvegetarian diet for the same length of time, after which their mean systolic blood pressure was 1 mm hg lower. if a vegetarian diet had no effect on blood pressure, there would be less than 1 chance in a 100 of getting these results. which statement is valid based on these results?
a) the difference in the sample size of the two groups makes a conclusion impossible.
b) the recommended diet for lower blood pressure is nonvegetarian.
c) the result is not practically significance.
d) the result is not statistically significant.

ANSWER:

The correct answer is A) The difference in the sample size of the two groups makes a conclusion impossible.

STEP-BY-STEP EXPLANATION:

The two groups’ difference in sample size makes a conclusion impossible on the off chance that there would be under 1 possibility in a 100 of getting these outcomes, if a vegan diet had no impact on circulatory strain.  

The announcement above is extremely valid since it is very difficult to happen with a privilege of truth, knowing the reality the two gatherings' example size isn't the equivalent. In the given, the pace of the mean systolic circulatory strain on the two grounds is influenced by the example size.  

The issue above uses an uncomplicated technique for evaluating the distinction with one or either side of two gatherings that has a great deal of focal points over the usage of trial of measurable significance alone is known as the impact size.

good for u

step-by-step explanation: