Exploring Further Now let’s suppose that this yawning study had involved 500 people, 10 times as many as the actual study. Let’s also suppose that the conditional proportions who yawned in each group were identical to the actual study. The 2 × 2 tables would therefore be:

	Yawn Seed Planted	Yawn seed not planted	total
subject yawned	100	40	140
the subject did not yawn	240	120	360
total	340	160	500

Before you conduct a simulation analysis, indicate how you expect the information in (a)–(d) to change:

a. Difference in conditional proportions: Smaller or Same or Larger

b. p-value: Smaller or Same or Larger

c. Strength of evidence that yawning is contagious: Weaker or Same or Stronger

d. Test decision at the 0.05 significance level: Reject null (unlike before) or Fail to reject null (as before)

Use the Two Proportions applet, again entering the appropriate table of data first, to conduct a simulation analysis. Report the approximate p-value and summarize your conclusion in terms of strength of evidence that yawning is contagious. Also indicate whether you would find strong evidence against the null hypothesis at the 0.05 significance level.

Summarize how the 10-fold increase in the sample size has changed your conclusions. Do you have stronger evidence that yawning is contagious? Is the evidence now very strong that yawning is contagious.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Answer F Soo No of people No of times 10 Subject yawned subject did not town total ... View the full answer