Question

in the 1972 gender discrimination study, what made this an experiment rather than an observational study? * 1 point
the study measured promotion rates between two groups
the supervisors were randomly assigned to receive either male or female files
the personnel files were identical except for gender
the researchers collected data from 48 bank supervisors

based on the study results, what can you conclude about the difference in * 1 point
promotion rates (87.5% for males vs 58.3% for females)?
the study was flawed because the sample size was too small
this difference could be due to chance and requires further statistical testing

Explanation:

In an experiment, there is random assignment of treatments. In the first question, random assignment of supervisors to receive male or female files makes it an experiment. For the second question, a difference in promotion - rates alone doesn't prove discrimination; it could be due to chance and needs more statistical analysis.

Answer:

The supervisors were randomly assigned to receive either male or female files
This difference could be due to chance and requires further statistical testing