TP13Q1. Your younger brother-who has no statistics background-was doing a little light reading in the journal, Science. He was reading about a research project that was investigating the risk of contracting the flu in university that was conducted because universities were considering introducing a mandatory flu shot policy. Previous evidence suggested that 3% of the university population would contract the flu in a given year if the entire population was vaccinated. Your brother came across the phrase, "the rate of flu contraction in our sample (2.9%) was statistically significantly lower than the hypothesized 3%". He didn't know what this phrase meant, and asked you for a simplified interpretation. What is the best interpretation of the phrase to give your brother? The expected risk of 3% of contracting the flu is definitely wrong. The actual risk of contracting the flu is a lot lower than 3%. The risk of contracting the flu in the sample was lower than anticipated if the actual rate was 3%. The university policy on flu shots is unnecessary because the actual risk is lower than expected