Suppose that there is a drug trial underway and that it has shown, based on 200 participants, 100 randomly assigned to treatment and 100 to placebo, that the mean health outcomes of the 100 treated and the mean health outcomes of the 100 placebo patients do not overlap - in terms of a 90 percent confidence level.

1. Formulate the Null H of the study
2. Would you be comfortable rejecting the null - why precisely? Why might you be less than comfortable? List considerations
3. The company believes that they have an even more powerful drug under development, and wonder whether a sample of 200 would be ok for testing its effectiveness - or whether they need more or fewer participants in the new trial. What do you think, based on what we have learned?
4. The company wants to increase the sample of the present drug trial, and hold back approval till results on a bigger sample are in. Describe what is good and what is bad about this approach?
5. Would you rather live in a society in which there are more drugs available - some of which are ineffective, rather than in a society in which drug effectiveness is more certain but there are fewer on the market? Do we "have" to choose, or can we devise ways of testing that ensure *both* speedy time o approval and guaranteed effectiveness? Use what we have learned to motivate your answer.