Is the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the south different from the proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west? 400 of the 512 randomly selected wildfires looked at in the south were caused by humans while 380 of the 504 randomly selected wildfires looked at the west were caused by humans. What can be concluded at the Q = 0.01 level of significance? a. For this study, we should use Select an answer b. The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: Select an answer Select an answer Select an answer H1: Select an answer Select an answer Select an answer c. The test statistic d. The p-value= e. The p-value is ? (please enter a decimal) (Please enter a decimal) (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.) (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.) f. Based on this, we should Select an answer the null hypothesis. g. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The results are statistically insignificant at a = 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. The results are statistically significant at a = 0.01, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of the 512 wildfires that were caused by humans in the south is different from the proportion of the 504 wildfires that were 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 different from the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west. 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 different from the population proportion of wildfires caused by humans in the west.