Consider the following scenario:

Sea Snapper brand gourmet frozen fish products claimed in advertising that their fish sticks are preferred more than two to one over the most popular brand, Captain John’s. The advertisements all include a definitive statement indicating that research existed which substantiated this claim. Captain John’s reaction was war; or at least legal war. They decided to sue Sea Snapper claiming that the advertisements include false claims based on faulty research. In court, the research is described in great detail. Sea Snapper conducted taste tests involving four hundred consumers who indicated that they regularly ate frozen food products. Two hundred tasted Sea Snapper premium fish sticks and the other two hundred tasted Captain John’s premium fish sticks. Consumer preference was measured with a 100-point rating scale. The results showed the average preference score for Sea Snapper was 78.2 compared to 39.0 for Captain John’s. Captain John’s attorney hires a research firm to assist in the lawsuit. They claim that the research is faulty because the procedures were improperly conducted. First, it turns out that Sea Snapper fish sticks were always presented to consumers on a blue plate while Captain John’s were always presented to consumers on an orange plate. Second, the Sea Snapper products used in the experiment were taken directly from the Sea Snapper kitchens to the testing facility, while the Captain John’s products were purchased at a local warehouse store.

a. Provide a critique of the procedures used to support the claim that Sea Snapper’s product is superior. Prepare it in a way that it could be presented as evidence in court.

b. Design an experiment that would provide a more valid test of the research question, “Do consumers prefer Sea Snapper fish sticks compared to Captain John’s fish sticks?”