Emily's experiment was clean, simple, and effective. Due to her parents' occupations in the medical field, she had wide access to people who claimed to be TT practitioners.Emily took 21 TT practitioners and used them for her science experiment. She would take a TT practitioner and ask them to extend their hands through a screen (which they can't see through). Emily would be on the other side and would flip a fair coin. Depending on how the coin landed, she would put out either her left hand or her right hand. The TT practitioner would then have to answer which hand Emily put out. If a pracitioner could truly interact with a person's HEF, it would be expected that they answered correctly.Overall, through 210 samples, the practitioner picked the correct hand 44% of the time.Emily's main goal here was to test whether or not the TT practicioners' guesses were random, like the flip of a coin. In most medical experiments, this is the norm. We want to test whether or not the treatment has an effect, not whether or not the treatment actually works.We will now begin to formulate this experiment in terms of the terminology we learned in this course.Question 1: Describe Emily’s model for how likely the TT practitioners are to choose the correct hand. What alternative model is her model meant to discredit?Question 2: Why is the statistic ''The absolute difference between the expected percent correct and the actual percent correct'' is the best choice for comparing outcomes in Emily's experiment? How does it relate to the models you defined in question 1?