Suppose that for a particular hypothesis test, the consequences of a type i error are not very serious, but there are serious consequences associated with making a type ii error. would you want to carry out the test using a small significance level α (such as 0.01) or a larger significance level (such as 0.10)? explain the reason for your choice.

We want to reduce type II error we carry out the test using a larger significance level (such as 0.10) and not a small significance level α (such as 0.01).

Step-by-step explanation:

Type I error

It is given that the consequences of a Type I error are not very serious, but there are serious consequences associated with making a Type II error.

Type II error

Since, we want to reduce type II error we carry out the test using a larger significance level (such as 0.10) and not a small significance level α (such as 0.01).

This will increase type I error but that is okay since we do not have serious consequences for it.

the population of other specie of birds will decline or other specie of birds will find some alternate source of food to survive.

explanation:

according to the competitive exclusion principle, which is also known as gause's law, two specie living in the same niche and feeding on the same resource cannot co-exist stably.

as we have well studied the theory of natural selection which states that only those organisms survive which have better tendency to compete for food and adapt to the environmental conditions.

coming towards the question, what wi ll happen when one species outcompetes the other for the small fish , the other specie will not get enough food and will start to die or decline in population. eventually either other specie needs to find another alternative food source for itself or migrate at some other location where there is less competition otherwise it will just not exist anymore at that niche.

hope it !