Is the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south higher than the proportion of wildfires caused
by humans in the west? 400 of the 587 randomly selected wildfires looked at in the south were caused by
humans while 362 of the 569 randomly selected wildfires looked at the west were caused by humans. What
can be concluded at the 0.05 level of significance?
a. For this study, we should use Select an answer
b. The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
$H_0$: Select an answer
Select an answer
Select an answer
(please enter a decimal)
$H_1$: Select an answer
Select an answer
Select an answer
(Please enter a decimal)
c. The test statistic?
(please show your answer to 3 decimal places.)
d. The p-value=
(Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.)
e. The p-value is
$?$
f. Based on this, we should Select an answer the null hypothesis.
g. Thus, the final conclusion is that....
The results are statistically significant at $? = 0.05$, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude
that the proportion of the 587 wildfires that were caused by humans in the south is higher than
the proportion of the 569 wildfires that were caused by humans in the west.
The results are statistically significant at $? = 0.05$, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude
that the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south is higher than the
population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west.
The results are statistically insignificant at $? = 0.05$, so there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south is higher
than the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west.
The results are statistically insignificant at $? = 0.05$, so there is statistically significant
evidence to conclude that the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the
south is equal to the population.proportion.of.wildfires.caused by humans in the west.
