Question

if your claim is in the null hypothesis and you fail to reject the null hypothesis, then your conclusion would be: there is not sufficient sample evidence to support the original claim there is not sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim there is sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim the sample data support the original claim

Explanation:

When the claim is in the null hypothesis and we fail to reject the null hypothesis, the conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim (which is in the null hypothesis). Let's analyze each option:

• "There is not sufficient sample evidence to support the original claim": This is incorrect because failing to reject the null (where the claim is) doesn't mean we can't support it in terms of not rejecting, and the wording about "support" here is misaligned.
• "There is not sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim": This is correct. Failing to reject the null (where the claim is) means we don't have enough evidence to say we should reject that claim.
• "There is sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim": This is the opposite of what happens when we fail to reject the null.
• "The sample data support the original claim": Failing to reject the null doesn't mean the data "support" the claim in a positive confirmation sense, just that we can't reject it.

Answer:

B. There is not sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the original claim