Fifty-four wild bears were anesthetized, and then their weights and chest sizes were measured and listed in a data set. Results are shown in the accompanying display. Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that there is a linear correlation between the weights of bears and their chest sizes? When measuring an anesthetized bear, is it easier to measure chest size than weight? If so, does it appear that a measured chest size can be used to predict the weight? Use a significance level of a=0.05. choice. (Round to three decimal places as needed.) OA. No, because the test statistic falls between the critical values. falls between the critical values. ( OB. Yes, because the test statistic OC. Yes, because the absolute value of the test statistic OD. No, because the absolute value of the test statistic OE. The answer cannot be determined from the given information. When measuring an anesthetized bear, is it easier to measure chest size than weight? If so, does it appear that a measured chest size can be used to predict the weight? exceeds the critical value. exceeds the critical value. Correlation Results Correlation coeff, r: 0.955798 Critical r: +0.2680855 P-value (two tailed): 0.000 OA. No, it is easier to measure weight than chest size because the chest is not a flat surface. OB. Yes, it is easier to measure a chest size than a weight because measuring weight would require lifting the bear onto the scale. The chest size could not be used to predict weight because there is too much variance in the weight of the bears. OC. Yes, it is easier to measure a chest size than a weight because measuring weight would require lifting the bear onto the scale. The chest size could not be used to predict weight because there is not a linear correlation between the two OD. Yes, it is easier to measure a chest size than a weight because measuring weight would require lifting the bear onto the scale. The chest size could be used to predict weight because there is a linear correlation between the two.