Therefore the null hypothesis (Ho) Respondent has never received information that his/her account was accessed by someone he/she do not know is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (Hi) Respondent has received information that his/her account was accessed by someone he/she do not know is accepted.
Therefore the null hypothesis (Ho) Respondent information has been modified without his/her permission is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (Hi) Respondent information has been modified with his/her permission is accepted.
Therefore the null hypothesis (Ho) Respondent never experience difficulty in accessing his/her profile information in time is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (Hi) Respondent has experienced difficulty in accessing his/her profile information in time is accepted.
Therefore the null hypothesis (Ho) Respondent can access his/her account always is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (Hi) at a point in time, respondent could not access his/her account at all is accepted.
Thus, the alternate hypothesis that Whitney Pier NOCO is significantly different from the control locations was rejected.
With respect to dust contamination in the homes, the alternate hypothesis was rejected: there is no evidence to suggest that Whitney Pier is significantly different from the control locations.
The alternate hypothesis that contaminants are entering the homes from outside was accepted.
