1. Sorry, Cherry, but you have things the wrong way around. If you reject the null hypothesis, the error you may be making is if the null hypothesis is in fact true.
In a Type I error, the null hypothesis is true, but is (falsly) rejected. So the danger here is of making a Type I error.
2. A 95% confidence interval is an interval of ±1.96 standard deviations about the mean. So the confidence interval is centred on the mean value. The length of the confidence interval is 80, so the mean is at the 40 point, that is, 188 + 40 = 228.
3. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is really false, but the evidence is not strong enough to reject it. So if you wrongly accept the null hypothesis, you are making a Type II error, which is the danger here.
It can be difficult to remember which is which. It might help to remember just this :
Type I error -- the null hypothesis is true
Type II error -- the alternative hypothesis is true
(it is then self-evident that if you make the error, in Type I you reject, and in Type II you accept, the null hypothesis).
4. I am not very familiar with the use of p-values, but as I understand it, the p-value is the lowest significance level at which the null hypothesis is rejected. It is a probability, in other words, so it should be a positive number less than 1, which would rule out -0.054, -1.35 and 1.87 as p-values. That leaves only 3.2 E-5, which seems so extraordinarily low that you would never reject the null hypothesis. So all these values look to be unlikely p-values. Usually, I think a reasonable p-value would be round about the 0.01 to 0.1 range, which makes the 0.054 value seem about right, except that it has that minus sign. So I think that you will have to decide this one for yourself.