Over one term the chosen 12 beat the random 12 by 4 percentage points. The correct reading is that this result:

Answer

Is consistent with luck and does not refute market efficiency

Options - A. Is consistent with luck and does not refute market efficiency - B. Proves that informed stock-picking beats a random selection - C. Refutes the semi-strong form of the efficient market hypothesis - D. Proves the random 12 were badly drawn and should be redrawn Why - A. Correct — identical-distribution simulations produce 4-to-9-point gaps routinely; one term cannot separate a 4-point edge from noise. - B. A single term of twelve stocks proves nothing about skill; the gap is inside the noise band. - C. Refuting efficiency needs a gap well outside noise, risk-adjusted, repeated across terms. - D. A documented random draw is valid whatever it returns; redrawing after the result is selection bias.

The course’s project brief (research.md §4, §8 — the instructor’s questioning, peer evaluation); OpenStax Principles of Finance §11.5 — efficiency, reference only; original outcomes and structure