What Lisper said may be correct, however he really doesn&#x27;t mention the application of the null-hypothesis in this experiment. To a skeptic it would seem the null hypothesis might be susceptible to the confusion of correlation and causation.<p>Edit:<p>The correct interpretation is that the model, the foundation of the null hypothesis, didn&#x27;t fail yet.<p>Part of this model is backed by more experiments: <i>&quot;The reason that we focused on SWA is that it is the only sleep characteristic that reflects the depth of sleep&quot;</i> [1].<p>The model doesn&#x27;t consist of a single variable. 11 people choosing the same 7 numbers out of 49 by chance is rather unlikely. The null hypothesis would include that there are only 11 people picking, that they don&#x27;t cheat, and that random chance is indeed a thing. If now 11 people would indeed all choose the same, then the experiment could be repeated, e.g. to show that they are cheating or to increase the significance.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;current-biology&#x2F;fulltext&#x2F;S0960-9822%2816%2930174-9" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;current-biology&#x2F;fulltext&#x2F;S0960-9822%2816...</a>