Olivia felt unwell after attending a birthday party. Olivia thought that perhaps the prawns she had eaten were not fresh. Olivia visited her doctor who confirmed she had contracted a salmonella infection. Olivia thought she would try to determine if there was indeed a link between salmonella infection and prawns. Olivia contacted the other party-goers and asked if they contracted a salmonella infection, and whether or not they had eaten the prawns. The results are displayed below: Salmonella Infection? Prawns Eaten? Total Yes No Yes 12 19 No 5 26 31 Total 17 33 50 SPSS Output: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Prawns Eaten?* 50 100.0% 0 0.0% 50 100.0% Salmonella Infection? Prawns Eaten? * Salmonella Infection? Crosstabulation Count Salmonella Infection? No Yes Total Prawns Eaten? No 26 5 31 Yes 12 19 Total 33 17 50 Risk Estima 95% Confidence Interval Value Lower Upper Odds Ratio for Prawns 8.914 2.343 33.909 Eaten? (No / Yes) For cohort Salmonella 2.276 1.239 4.184 Infection? = No For cohort Salmonella .255 107 611 Infection? = Yes N of Valid Cases 50Using the information provided what is the relative risk of salmonella infection for party-goes who had eaten prawns? V [ Select ] 2.27 2.28 vided what is the odds ratio of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns 3.92 0.26 0.25 0.11 nella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26. What is the best interpretation 0.44 fection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times lower than for party-goes whoUsing the information provided what is the odds ratio of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns? V [ Select ] 0.25 3.92 nella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26. What is the best interpretation of 2.28 fection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times lower than for party-goes who had 2.27 0.44 fection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times higher than for party-goes who had 0.11 fection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times as likely as for party-goes who had 0.26The relative risk of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26. What is the best interpretation of this relative risk ratio value. a), b), c), or d)? a) The risk of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times lower than for party-goes who had eaten prawns. b) The risk of salmonella infection for partygoes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times higher than for party-goes who had eaten prawns. c) The risk of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times as likely as for party-goes who had eaten prawns - it is less likely. g) The risk of salmonella infection for party-goes who had not eaten prawns is 0.26 times as likely as for party-goes who had eaten prawns - it is more likely