Two competitive investment fund managers devised a plan to determine which one is better at picking stocks. They
hired a statistician to randomly select some stocks from
each manager's portfolio and to compare the proportions of
these stocks that are valued higher than they were 6 months
earlier. Her analysis revealed that 66% of the stocks picked
by manager #1 had increased in value while 60% of the
stocks picked by manager #2 had increased in value. Her
p-value for a two tailed test was 0.3500. At a significance
level of 0.05, what should she conclude?
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the
two fund managers differ in their ability to pick
stocks.
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two
fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks.
Fund manager #1 is better at picking stocks than
fund manager #2
Fund manager #2 is better at picking stocks than
fund manager #1.