A sports writer hypothesized that Tiger Woods plays better on par 3 holes than on par 4 holes. He reviewed Woods' performance in a random sample of golf tournaments. On the par 3 holes, Woods made a birdie in 20 out of 80 attempts. On the par 4 holes, he made a birdie in 40 out of 200 attempts. How would you interpret this result?

a. The p-value is < 0.001, very strong evidence that Woods plays better on par 3 holes.
b. The p-value is between 0.001 and 0.01, strong evidence that Woods plays better on par 3 holes.
c. The p-value is between 0.01 and 0.05, moderate evidence that Woods plays better on par 3 holes.
d. The p-value is between 0.05 and 0.1, some evidence that Woods plays better on par 3 holes.
e. The p-value is > 0.1, little or no support for the notion that Woods plays better on par 3 holes.
Please help, I'm not sure how to calculate the p-value here.