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.

The two groups’ difference in sample size makes a conclusion impossible if there would be less than 1 chance in a 100 of getting these results, if a vegetarian diet had no effect on blood pressure.

The statement above is very true since it is quite impossible to come about with a right of truth, knowing the fact the two groups’ sample size is not the same. In the given, the rate of the mean systolic blood pressure on both grounds is affected by the sample size.

The problem above uses an uncomplicated method of quantifying the difference with one or either side of two groups that has a lot of advantages over the utilization of test of statistical importance alone is called the effect size.

the answer is n

well there are two answers for that.

1: you need 120 ones then that will equal up to 120.

2: you could also do one 100 and 2 tens.

those are the answers that i have thought of.