1. Your null hypothesis is that the mean height of a subpopulation () is 67.0 inches. You collect a sample, and the mean height (x-bar) of the sample is 72.0 inches. Your results lead you to reject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 significance level. However, it turns out that the true mean (mu) of that subpopulation really is 67.0 inches. What best describes how that erroneous conclusion might have been reached?

	A.	It was a type I error.
	B.	The experimental design was clearly fundamentally flawed.
	C.	It was a type II error.
	D.	A math error is the only way this erroneous conclusion could have been made.