Question

A farmer compared the corn he grew on fields A and B. First he tested whether the mean height of the corn was the same on the two fields, he calculated a p-value of 0.93. Next he tested whether the mean sugar concentration of the corn was the same on the two fields, he calculated a p-value of 0.31. Since the first p-value is greater than the second p-value, the farmer concluded that there is more evidence to support the statement that the mean heights are the same than there is to support the statement that the mean sugar concentrations are the same. Do you agree with this conclusion? Explain.

Answer 1

NO. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REASON FOR GIVEN CONCLUSIONS. THE FIRST TESTING IS FOR whether the mean height of the corn was the same on the two fields. So the P value=0.93 we can conclude that the mean height of the corn was the same on the two fields.

Now second testing is for whether the mean sugar concentration of the corn was the same on the two fields. For this P value=0.31 therefore we can conclude that the mean sugar concentration of the corn was the same on the two fields.

Here one testing is for mean height of crops and another testing for mean concentration of crops.

We comapare Pvalue with level of significance and then conclude our statement.

Suppose alpha=0.05.

For testing whether the mean height of the corn was the same on the two fields is P value =0.93 which isGREATER THAN 0.05 therefore NOT SIGNIFICANT AND WECAN SAY THAT the mean height of the corn was the same on the two fields.. Similarly for second testing

We never cocmpare two different test Pvalues.