= Solution
\b[The printed group means suggest about 13.49 more tweets in the liberal group, but the reported significance cannot be accepted as one coherent test result. The printed $p=0.04288$ would reject equal means at 5%; the printed $t=-1.9436$ with 23.92 <statistical degrees of freedom> instead gives a two-sided <p-value> about 0.06380 and would not reject at 5%. The confidence-interval fields are also inconsistent.]
There are 14 conservative-coded and 12 liberal-coded observations. The tweet summary has <sample median> 258.5, <quartiles> 204.5 and 323.2, and range 108 to 441, so the <interquartile range> is about 118.7 tweets. No measurement period is specified, so these should not be reinterpreted as tweets per day. The displayed overall <sample mean> is 261.5, subject to a further consistency issue below. These are small groups; the summary alone cannot establish normality, lack of outliers or an appropriate sampling design.
Let $\mu_C$ and $\mu_L$ be the two population means for the defined tweet measure. The <null hypothesis> is $H_0:\mu_C-\mu_L=0$, against the <two-sided test> alternative $H_1:\mu_C-\mu_L\ne0$. <Welch's t-test> uses
$$
t=\frac{\overline y_C-\overline y_L}{\sqrt{s_C^2/n_C+s_L^2/n_L}},
$$
allowing unequal group <variances>. It requires independent observations and a suitable approximation to the sampling distribution of the mean difference; a large-sample justification cannot simply be assumed with group sizes 14 and 12. Its noninteger <statistical degrees of freedom> comes from the Welch approximation, not a fractional number of respondents.<Student's t-Test in the R documentation>[Arguments and Details: two-sided alternative and unequal-variance Welch calculation]{ref}
The two displayed <sample means> imply
$$
\widehat\Delta=255.4286-268.9167=\boxed{-13.4881\text{ tweets}.}
$$
The negative sign means the liberal-coded group has the larger observed mean. This is a difference in group averages, not a statement about every individual and not evidence that political orientation causes tweeting behaviour. Practical importance concerns this difference and its context; <statistical significance> does not itself measure its importance.
A <p-value> is calculated under the <null hypothesis> and the assumed sampling model. It is the probability of a result at least as incompatible with that hypothesis as the observed one, not the probability that the hypothesis is true or that this conclusion is mistaken. A prespecified <significance level> controls the long-run <Type I error> rate of rejecting a true null; a <Type II error> is nonrejection of a false null, and <statistical power> concerns rejection under a specified alternative. Neither a small <p-value> nor a nonrejection settles the <effect size> or a causal explanation.
Taken on its own, the printed <p-value> supports a nominal 5% rejection, but not a 1% rejection. Taken instead from the printed t statistic and <statistical degrees of freedom>, the two-sided tail is about 0.06380. These different 5% decisions cannot be reconciled by ordinary rounding. Conditional on trusting the group means, t and degrees of freedom, the implied <standard error> is $(-13.4881)/(-1.9436)\approx6.93975$ and the corresponding 95% <confidence interval> is
$$
\boxed{[-27.814,\ 0.837]\text{ tweets, conditional on those fields}.}
$$
It includes zero, consistently with that larger <p-value>. This calculation is a conditional consistency check, not recovery of the true raw-data interval.
The source lists its interval endpoints as 0.04582 and $-126.7904$, in that order. They are not ordered, and merely sorting them would still give midpoint about $-63.3723$, rather than the estimated difference $-13.4881$. The <symmetric confidence-interval consistency identities> therefore fail for the usual t interval. A frequentist 95% interval describes repeated-sample coverage of its procedure, not a 95% posterior probability for a fixed parameter; neither interpretation justifies silently repairing these endpoints.
The group summaries also imply pooled mean $(14\times255.4286+12\times268.9167)/26\approx261.6539$, which cannot round to the printed 261.5. The <pooled-mean compatibility under rounding> identifies this additional mismatch for summaries of the same complete sample. Thus \b[the observed direction is conditionally liberal-greater-than-conservative, but the inferential decision and interval require corrected coherent output. Nonrejection under the t/df reading would not establish equal population means.] Random assignment, representativeness and possible <confounding> are not supplied by this test.
Back to article page
