From 95fe7f0abec0e28339974915e58bc76236c6e8fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Mine=20=C3=87etinkaya-Rundel?= Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:47:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo, closes #351 --- 11-foundations-randomization.qmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/11-foundations-randomization.qmd b/11-foundations-randomization.qmd index 211b5142..83de1389 100644 --- a/11-foundations-randomization.qmd +++ b/11-foundations-randomization.qmd @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ When looking at the rates of promotion in this study, why might we be tempted to ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -The large difference in promotion rates (`r perc_female` for female personnel versus `r perc_male` for male personnel) suggest there might be discrimination against women in promotion decisions. +The large difference in promotion rates (`r perc_female` for female personnel versus `r perc_male` for male personnel) suggests there might be discrimination against women in promotion decisions. However, we cannot yet be sure if the observed difference represents discrimination or is just due to random chance when there is no discrimination occurring. Since we wouldn't expect the sample proportions to be *exactly* equal, even if the truth was that the promotion decisions were independent of sex, we can't rule out random chance as a possible explanation when simply comparing the sample proportions. :::