The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) asserts that securities prices fully reflect all available information at any given time. As a result, it suggests that it's impossible to consistently achieve higher returns than the overall market through stock selection or market timing, since any new information is quickly incorporated into prices. EMH is categorized into three forms: weak, semi-strong, and strong, each varying in the types of information considered. Ultimately, EMH implies that markets are efficient and that investors cannot easily outperform the market through analysis or trading strategies.
Some people say you can either accept the null hypothesis or reject it. However, there are statisticians that insist you can either reject it or fail to reject it, but you can't accept it because then you're saying it's true. If you fail to reject it, you're only claiming that the data wasn't strong enough to convince you to choose the alternative hypothesis over the null hypothesis.
Economists say that competitive markets are efficient because when there is competition prices are lower. The more available an item, the less it will cost the consumer.
Inflation is when..... say a sweet cost 50p one year and the next 1 pound then you have to go borrow the extra 50p to buy the sweet
Economists emphasize distinguishing between relative and observable prices because relative prices reflect the value of goods in comparison to one another, influencing consumer choices and resource allocation. Observable prices, on the other hand, are the actual market prices at which goods are sold. Understanding relative prices helps in assessing the opportunity cost of decisions, while observable prices provide concrete data for market analysis. This distinction is crucial for effective economic decision-making and policy formulation.
A perfectly competitive market has many competitors. There is no one competitor that has more say in product prices within the industry.
ANSWER: A verbal hypothesis is when you say a hypothesis orallly.
say that your hypothesis is incorrect in your conclusion
In Karl Popper's terminology there must be a way to prove a hypothesis false. That is what it means when scientists say that a specific hypothesis is a "testable hypothesis".
hypothesis
Some researchers say that a hypothesis test can have one of two outcomes: you accept the null hypothesis or you reject the null hypothesis. Many statisticians, however, take issue with the notion of "accepting the null hypothesis." Instead, they say: you reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject the null hypothesis. Why the distinction between "acceptance" and "failure to reject?" Acceptance implies that the null hypothesis is true. Failure to reject implies that the data are not sufficiently persuasive for us to prefer the alternative hypothesis over the null hypothesis.
dont say nonsense to dumb shoppers
government controls HAVE been abolished
Making a hypothesis is turning your question into an answer Example: you say "How is a rainbow made" you answer the best of your ability) "A rainbow is made by the sun reflecting on the water"
Making a hypothesis is turning your question into an answer Example: you say "How is a rainbow made" you answer the best of your ability) "A rainbow is made by the sun reflecting on the water"
they will say that they will improve gas prices,college prices,and safety things
If a hypothesis can't be tested then it's not "scientific".
Your grammar.......