"This is pretty straightforward and hopefully it seems pretty unremarkable. That said, there’s a few things that you should note about this description:"
Please change this to just "There’s a few things that you should note about this description:". Again, saying it's unremarkable and straightforward just makes me feel dumb if I have any questions about it. And in fact I do have questions about it. It says "A chi-square goodness-of fit test was conducted to test whether the choice probabilities were identical for all four suits." As you state below, it's counter-intuitive to say you're testing for the null hypothesis when in reality what you care about (what you're actually doing the test for) is to check if the alternative hypothesis is true. It's good that you explain that point below, but saying up from that it's "straightforward and unremarkable" just makes me feel dumb if I'm puzzled at first why it's phrased in terms of the null hypothesis.
Actually, on closer reading, I see that your section below does not discuss the strangeness of saying you're testing the null hypothesis and not the alternative hypothesis (you just talk about whether it's helpful to say the hypothesis at all). So I think it would be good to call out the strangeness that even though what you actually care about is whether people choose suits non-randomly, you say you are testing whether they choose suits randomly (and hoping they don't).
"This is pretty straightforward and hopefully it seems pretty unremarkable. That said, there’s a few things that you should note about this description:"
Please change this to just "There’s a few things that you should note about this description:". Again, saying it's unremarkable and straightforward just makes me feel dumb if I have any questions about it. And in fact I do have questions about it. It says "A chi-square goodness-of fit test was conducted to test whether the choice probabilities were identical for all four suits." As you state below, it's counter-intuitive to say you're testing for the null hypothesis when in reality what you care about (what you're actually doing the test for) is to check if the alternative hypothesis is true. It's good that you explain that point below, but saying up from that it's "straightforward and unremarkable" just makes me feel dumb if I'm puzzled at first why it's phrased in terms of the null hypothesis.
Actually, on closer reading, I see that your section below does not discuss the strangeness of saying you're testing the null hypothesis and not the alternative hypothesis (you just talk about whether it's helpful to say the hypothesis at all). So I think it would be good to call out the strangeness that even though what you actually care about is whether people choose suits non-randomly, you say you are testing whether they choose suits randomly (and hoping they don't).