Is the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south lower than the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west? 363 of the 594 randomly selected wildfires looked at in the south were caused by humans while 325 of the 506 randomly selected wildfires looked at the west were caused by humans. What can be concluded at the x = 0.01 level of significance? a. For this study, we should use [2-test for the difference between two population proportions b. The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: p1 H₂ 8 8 8 p1 c. The test statistic z d. The p-value= e. The p-value is ✓✓p2 f. Based on this, we should fail to reject (please enter a decimal) -1.065 (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.) (Please enter a decimal) (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.) the null hypothesis. 8. Thus, the final conclusion is that... The results are statistically insignificant at a = 0.01, 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 a = 0.01, 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 significant at a = 0.01, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of the 594 wildfires that were caused by humans in the south is lower than the proportion of the 506 wildfires that were caused by humans in the west. The results are statistically insignificant at ax = 0.01, 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.