Question

Is the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south lower than the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west? 372 of the 510 randomly selected wildfires looked at in the south were caused by humans while 440 of the 571 randomly selected wildfires looked at the west were caused by humans. What can be concluded at the alpha = 0.05 level of significance? For this study, we should use z-test for the difference between two population proportions The null and alternative hypotheses would be: H_0: p1 = p2 (please enter a decimal) H_1: p1 < p2 (Please enter a decimal) The test statistic z = -1.563 (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.) The p-value = .0591 (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.) The p-value is ≤ alpha Based on this, we should reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The results are statistically insignificant at α = 0.05, so there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south is lower than the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west. The results are statistically significant at α = 0.05, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south is lower than the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west. The results are statistically insignificant at α = 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. The results are statistically significant at α = 0.05, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of the 510 wildfires that were caused by humans in the south is lower than the proportion of the 571 wildfires that were caused by humans in the west.

Answer 1