A quality control inspector believes that the variance in the diameters of soda cans, measured in millimeters, is greater for soda cans produced by Machine A than for soda cans produced by Machine B. The sample variance of a random sample of 23 soda cans from Machine A is 2.912. The sample variance for a random sample of 20 soda cans from Machine B is 1.095. Assume that both population distributions are approximately normal and test the inspector's claim using a 0.05 level of significance. Does the evidence support the inspector's claim? Let soda cans produced by Machine A be Population 1 and let soda cans produced by Machine B be Population 2. Step 3 of 3: Draw a conclusion and interpret the decision. Answer 2 Points Tables Keypad Keyboard Shortcuts We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.05 level of significance to support the inspector's claim that the 0 variance in the diameters of soda cans is greater for soda cans produced by Machine A than for soda cans produced by Machine B. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.05 level of significance to support the inspector's claim that the variance in the diameters of soda cans is greater for soda cans produced by Machine A than for soda cans produced by Machine B. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.05 level of significance to support the inspector's claim that the variance in the diameters of soda cans is greater for soda cans produced by Machine A than for soda cans produced by Machine B. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.05 level of significance to support the inspector's claim O that the variance in the diameters of soda cans is greater for soda cans produced by Machine A than for soda cans produced by Machine B.