Is the following statement a proper interpretation of a 95% Cl on the population variance and why or why not? "We are 95% sure that the population variance falls within the boundaries of our CI". a. Yes, because 95 times out of 100 when we follow this procedure, the real world variance will fall within our established estimates. b. No, because there's no statement of the actual boundary values made. c. No, because 5% of the time that we follow this procedure the real world mean is going to fall outside our established estimates. d. No, because this type of interpretation can't be made on a Cl on variance, because it is not based on a symmetrical population distribution. e. Yes, because about 95% of the time we develop a Cl using this procedure, the real world variance is going to fall within our established boundaries