for the Hypothesis Testing Case Problem: PAR Inc. in a substantive manner respond to the below, and provide information that they may have missed or may not have considered regarding the application of hypothesis testing in business and economics. Do you agree with their conclusions? Why or why not? After completing the hypothesis testing analysis for Par, Inc., my conclusion is that the company should not move forward with replacing the current golf ball with the new cut-resistant modelat least not yet. The data showed that while the new ball does offer potential improvements in durability, it does not offer a statistically significant improvement in driving distance. Using a two-sample t-test with 40 observations per group, the p-value was 0.18far above the commonly accepted significance level of 0.05. This means we fail to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean driving distances of the two balls. Additionally, the 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from -1.03 to 6.87 yards, which includes zerofurther reinforcing the lack of statistical difference. However, this does not mean the new ball has no merit. If the product is aimed at players who experience frequent ball damage (such as cuts or abrasions), the enhanced durability may justify its place in the market. But in terms of driving performance, the current ball remains slightly superior in average distance. I recommend that Par, Inc. continue testing with a larger sample size to reduce the standard error and obtain more preci