= Solution
Let $\mu_U$ and $\mu_V$ be the <population means> of the newspaper trust score for the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. A <two-sided hypothesis test> compares
$$
H_0:\mu_U-\mu_V=0,\qquad H_1:\mu_U-\mu_V\ne0.
$$
The observed <difference of sample means> is $5.5-6.5=-1$: the vaccinated group has a one-unit higher average trust score. The negative <test statistic> agrees with subtraction in this order. A <Student's t-test> scales the estimated difference by its estimated <standard error>; $t=-3.6$ means that the observed difference is 3.6 estimated <standard errors> below the equal-mean <null hypothesis>.
Using the reported reference <Student t-distribution> with 747 <statistical degrees of freedom>,
$$
\boxed{p=2\mathbb P(T_{747}\ge3.6)\approx0.000339.}
$$
Thus the equal-mean <null hypothesis> is rejected at a prespecified 5%, 1% or 0.1% <significance level>, subject to the test's assumptions. A <p-value> is a probability of a result at least this extreme under the specified <null hypothesis> and sampling model. It is neither the probability that the <null hypothesis> is true nor the probability that this particular conclusion is mistaken. A chosen <significance level> controls the procedure's <type I error> probability under that model.
The estimated difference is more informative than <statistical significance> alone. If the reported statistic uses this one-unit contrast, its estimated <standard error> is $1/3.6\approx0.2778$. The corresponding approximate 95% <confidence interval> is
$$
-1\pm t_{747,0.975}(0.2778)\approx[-1.545,-0.455].
$$
This interval concerns a <population mean> difference under repeated sampling; it is not a range containing 95% of individual trust scores. Its practical interpretation also depends on the trust scale and the importance of a one-unit difference.
The groups are disjoint, so an independent-samples comparison is appropriate if the sampled observations are independent. The exact pooled <Student's t-test> additionally assumes common population <variance> and <normal distributions>; <Welch's t-test> permits unequal <variances> and uses an approximate reference distribution. A bounded or ordinal rating need not be exactly normal, so treating it numerically and using a large-sample approximation also requires judgment about group sizes and the score's meaning.
There is a bookkeeping qualification. The later outputs use 748 observations. If these are also the complete observations for this two-group comparison, the pooled test has $748-2=746$ <statistical degrees of freedom>, and the <Welch degrees of freedom upper bound> is also 746. The printed 747 therefore needs the original test call or a different sample count to reconcile it. The reported-calibration calculation above answers the stated test; it does not invent group sizes or silently change the reference distribution.
\b[The evidence supports an association between higher newspaper trust and recorded vaccination, rather than a causal effect of trust.] An <observational study> does not rule out <confounding>, <selection bias> or <reverse causation>. A <statistical hypothesis test> cannot supply those missing causal assumptions.
Back to article page
