Part A: A Type II error in this context is failing to reject the null hypothesis that 25% of parents with hearing impaired children have the ability to pass a sign-language exam when actually less than 25% are able to pass it.
Part B: We fail to reject the null hypothesis because the p-value of 0.96 is larger than α = 0.05. The evidence is not substantial that the proportion of parents with hearing impaired children in Clover City who are able to pass a sign language exam is less than 0.25. The sample proportion of phat = 0.96 is greater than 0.25.
Part C: The sample of 175 parents with hearing impaired children in Clover City was a group of volunteers, so most likely they were confident in their ability to pass a sign language exam which could better the chances of more passing sign language exams.