After a political ad campaign, pollsters check the president's negatives. They test the hypothesis that the ads produced no change against the alternative that the negatives are now below 54% and find a p-value of 0.038.

Which conclusion is appropriate? Explain.

A- There is a 3.8% chance that the ads work.

B- There is 96.2% chance that the ad works.

C- There is a 3.8% chance that natural sampling variation could produce poll results at least as far below 54% as these if there is really no change in public opinion.

D- There is 3.8% chance that the poll they conduct ed is correct.

C- There is a 3.8% chance that natural sampling variation could produce poll results at least as far below 54% as these if there is really no change in public opinion.

Step-by-step explanation:

The p-value indicates the probability that the test statistic occurs, given that the parameters of the null hypothesis are true.

The smallest the p-value, the less likely is the sample statistic obtained. If this p-value is below a threshold, called "level of significance", it can be claimed that the null hypothesis is wrong.

In this case, we can not say anything about the probability of success of the ad campaign or the quality of the poll, because we have no information about it.

the answer is the third / last answer

step-by-step explanation: