Agroup of scientists have published a revolution discovery they claim to have invented a car engine that runs on water instead of gasoline a writer publishes an article attacking the scientist and claiming that their invention will never work which of the following if it’s true most likely suggest that the writer is based

The answer to this that seems the most likely reason that the writer would be biased is because they have a stake or commitment that would be in danger if cars that run solely on water would hurt it. If there is a answer along those lines that is it, and here is why:

If the writer works for, owns, or has invested in a oil company the writer could be in trouble. If water driven cars suddenly take off and become popular, the writer will lose a whole lot of money as the stock market prices and the value of oil decreases. This would lead to the writer being biased to protect their own interests and investments.

Now on the other hand if you are just asking if the writer is biased, the answer is probably true. The one reason the writer wouldn't be considered biased would be if the writer was a scientist that had tested the actual water power motor

a hypothesis is an expected answer to a question, usually based on some theory or prior research. hypothesis testing is a method of determining the viability of a hypothesis. let’s use the us presidential election as an example. there are many hypotheses (questions) about how people feel or whom they will vote for. the only way to know the 100% “truth” about the answers to these questions is to ask every single possible voter – something that is impossible, expensive, time consuming etc. instead, we take samples and use statistics to make “best guesses” about the answer to a particular hypothesis. we never know for sure if our conclusion is right at the time we accept/reject it, but these techniques, when used appropriately can get us close to the truth most of the time (which is a lot better than guessing, flipping coins or throwing darts to get answers).

the tricky part about hypothesis testing is that we have to think somewhat backwards about it – we have to test what is known as the “null hypothesis”. as an example, the hypothesis might be “obama is more popular than romney” while the null hypothesis is “there is no difference in popularity between obama and romney”. we focus on the null hypothesis because it tells us exactly what the expected value of our tests should be (obama popularity = romney popularity) and we can collect data and see if it comes out that way (see next section on “significance”). if it does, then we “accept the null hypothesis” and reject our original hypothesis. if the null hypothesis is disproven, we look at the data to see if our original hypothesis holds (obama> romney).