1. State Ho and Ha formally and in ″English″ (e.g. Ho: u ＝ 20 Ha: u ˂˃ 20; Ho: The average (variable name) is 20 Ha: The average ″variable name″ is NOT 20. Be clear that you say the VARIABLE that is actually sampled…NOT the construct it intends to measure! (5 points) 2. Do math (10 points) 3. Reject or retain the Ho at a ＝ .05; provide the ″critical t″ value at that level (see t table) (10 pts) 4. Make all tests and hypotheses two-tail REGARDLESS of a question about direction 5. Explain the findings in plain English. That is, in three sentences say what you determined (really Ho or Ha conclusion), the sample evidence (sample size, sample mean), and how ″certain″ you are of the findings (the reject or retain at a＝.05). For example, say we RETAINED the null for a sample of 20 at .05. (15 points) We do not have enough evidence to conclude that the average (variable) is different from NULL HYPOTHESIS VALUE. In our sample of SAMPLE SIZE, we found an average of MEAN. While this is different, there is more than a 5% chance we could have gotten up to this much of a difference due to normal sampling error (when in fact the average really is NULL value). That () part you can leave off…just for you to clarify what the reject/retain means. Reject We are willing to conclude the average (variable) is not NULL HYPOTHESIS VALUE. In our sample of SAMPLE SIZE, we found an average of MEAN. There is less than a 5% chance we could have gotten up to this much of a difference due to normal sampling error (when in fact the average really is NULL value). That () part you can leave off…just for you to clarify what the reject/retain means. Notice the logic. In each case, you say what you decided, on the basis of what evidence, and how confident you are in the conclusion while being CLEAR that it is a probabilistic judgment call.