Does the report state or imply, or is there otherwise reason to believe, that the findings are statistically significant?
"Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California report that they have isolated and cloned two human genes that control and repair defective and damaged cells. A biophysicist and a biologist at the laboratory inserted the cloned normal genes from human DNA into the genetically defective cells of Chinese hamsters. The human repair genes took over the cellular machinery of the hamsters and corrected their defects, the scientists said. Approximately two-thirds of the cells that received the cloned genes returned to normal, while only about one-tenth of one percent of similar, untreated cells achieved a normal condition. It is hoped that the research will eventually produce an effective treatment for radiation-damaged tissue in humans, according to a spokesman for the laboratory."
The figures are hypothetical, invented to illustrate studies at Lawrence Livermore laboratores, as reported by David Perlman in the San Francisco Chronicle. [M&P]
A.The results are statistically significant because the experiment was performed by scientists at a reputable laboratory.
B. The sample size is too large to have the results be statistically significant.
C. The results are not statistically significant because only about one-tenth of one percent of similar, untreated cells achieved a normal condition.
D.There is a huge difference of frequency of effect between experimental and control group, so you'd expect the difference to be statistically significant.
D, the difference is so... View the full answer