Scientific consensus supports the idea that living organisms require oxygen. then, a scientist discovers a type of bacteria that metabolizes sulfur instead of oxygen, and thus survives in environments without oxygen. the scientist concludes that a diverse group of many different organisms could live in an oxygen-free environment. why should are some scientists skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion?

Explanation:

First of all, this is a theory, nothing else. This means that they are no strong evidence and events that support this. Another important point is that scientists discover a type of BACTERIA, nothing else, which means that the living organism with this nature is unicellular, it's not a complex organism like multicellular. However, they conclude that a DIVERSE GROUP can live without oxygen, which is a lie, they are speculating.

dude have you found the answer? i go to connexus as well but i think the answer is prime minister

answer; i believe that the correct answer is (tabula rasa);