please check this.

The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 14%. A warden suspects that this percent is different if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 324 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 32 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.05 level of significance?

For this study, we should use

The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
Ho:            (please enter a decimal)
H₁:            (Please enter a decimal)

The test statistic     =  (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.)

The p-value =  (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.)

The p-value is     αα

Based on this, we should      the null hypothesis.

Thus, the final conclusion is that ...

The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.

The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 14%.

The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.

Interpret the p-value in the context of the study.

If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 3.24% chance that either fewer than 10% of the 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders or more than 18% of the 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders.

There is a 3.24% chance of a Type I error.

If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 10% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 3.24% chance that we would conclude either fewer than 14% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders or more than 14% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders.

There is a 3.24% chance that the percent of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders differs from 14%.

Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study.

If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 5% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 14%.

If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 5% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.

There is a 5% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.

There is a 5% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.

Question

please check this.

The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 14%. A warden suspects that this percent is different if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 324 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 32 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.05 level of significance?

For this study, we should use
The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
Ho: (please enter a decimal)
H₁: (Please enter a decimal)

The test statistic = (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.)
The p-value = (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.)
The p-value is αα
Based on this, we should the null hypothesis.
Thus, the final conclusion is that ...
- The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 14%.
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 14% at αα = 0.05, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.
Interpret the p-value in the context of the study.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 3.24% chance that either fewer than 10% of the 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders or more than 18% of the 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders.
- There is a 3.24% chance of a Type I error.
- If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 10% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 3.24% chance that we would conclude either fewer than 14% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders or more than 14% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders.
- There is a 3.24% chance that the percent of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders differs from 14%.
Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 5% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 14%.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 14% and if another 324 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 5% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.
- There is a 5% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.
- There is a 5% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 14%.

Accepted Answer

Given that 
Sample size n =324
Favorable cases x =32
Sample proportion p^=x/n 
=32/324
=0.0988…

For this study, we should use The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: (please enter a decimal) H1: (Please enter a decimal) The test statistic = (please show your answer to 3 decimal