The sampling distribution of the test statistic is divided into two regions, a region of rejection (Sometimes called the

critical region) and a region of non-rejection. As such conclusion can be made that there is insufficient evidence that the population mean is different from the calculated values. If the test statistic falls into the rejection region, then null hypothesis is reject. In this case, conclusion made was the existence of difference between populations mean is not same as calculated means.

Indeed, the region of rejection consists of the values of the test statistic that are unlikely to occur if the null hypothesis is true. These values are more likely to occur if the null hypothesis is false. Therefore, if a value of the test statistic falls into this rejection region, you reject the null hypothesis because that value is unlikely if the null hypothesis is true. To make a decision concerning the null hypothesis, the critical value of the test statistic is first determined. The critical value divides the non-rejection region from the rejection region. Determining this critical value depends on the size of the rejection region. The size of the rejection region is directly related to the risks involved in using only sample evidence to make decisions about a population parameter.

The p-value, often referred to as the observed level of significance, is the smallest level at which H0 can be rejected. The decision rules for rejecting H0 in the p-value approach are 0 If the p-value is greater than or equal to zero, do not reject the null hypothesis. If the p-value is less than zero, reject the null hypothesis.

However, in this analysis four different test was conducted on the data the first was testing the effect of loan for beneficiaries of loan with the assumption of equal variance which the t-stat shows 1.39 before was given for them and 0.09 after the loan was issued to the beneficiaries and the t-critical was 1.69. Form the result above the t-critical was greater than t-stat as such we could reject that null hypothesis that there was no difference between the means before and after the loan. Implying that loan had impact the means of the beneficiaries. However for those without loan there exist differences as well showing a tstatistics of 0.165 before and 0.43 after with a t-critical of 1.69 all below the t-critical value. Generally in all the four analysis the result implies that loan had really impacted on the means of the beneficiaries more than non-beneficiaries under both, equality in variance and non-equality of variances. Hence the conclusion to be drawn from the result implies that loan is required for maximum productivity in Agricultural production, though at varying degree of importance.