Which statement would most likely explain why the results of one new experiment did not support an accepted hypothesis?

a. there was a flaw in the experiment’s design or errors when it was conducted.
b. two different theories about the subject are both true at the same time.
c. the hypothesis was false, and scientists should replace it with a new one.
d. the question that originally inspired the hypothesis was not fit for scientific inquiry.

troll answers will be reported.

The correct answer should be

C. The hypothesis was false, and scientists should replace it with a new one.

Hope this helps,

Davinia.

The statement “There was a flaw in the experiment’s design or errors when it was conducted”  most likely explain why the results of one new experiment did not support an accepted hypothesis

Option A

Explanation:

As the hypothesis is already accepted one that means the outcomes of the hypothesis is correct without any doubt. But if we perform a new experiment to support that hypothesis and unfortunately we obtain counter results which do not support the hypothesis.

Then there must be a flaw in the experiment’s design or errors when it was conducted. Because conclusion to a hypothesis was arrived only after repeating the experiments or results originating the hypothesis a number of times.

So it is difficult or nearly impossible to not support any accepted hypothesis using new experiments. It can only be possible when there is error in the design or analysis from the experiment.

the old price per ounce is c/4.

the new price per ounce is c/3.6.

the ratio of the old price to the new one is

(c/4)/(c/3.6) = (c/c)×(3.6/4) = 0.9 . . = 9/10 . . "nine tenths" in either form