Karl Pearson, who developed many important concepts in statistics, collected crime data in 1909. Of those convicted of arson, 50 were drinkers and 43 abstained. Of those convicted of fraud, 63 were drinkers and 144 abstained. Use a 0.01 significance level to test the claim that the proportion of drinkers among convicted arsonists is greater than the proportion of drinkers convicted of fraud. Does it seem reasonable that drinking might have an effect on the type of crime? Why?