Question

Although the search for liquid water on Mars is ongoing, scientists have known for quite some time that Mars has water ice at its poles, even though volcanic activity has never been observed on Mars. Does this finding prevent the inside-out model from becoming a theory? Why or why not?

Yes, because Mars is near Earth and was likely affected by the same comets.
Yes, because it shows that volcanic activity is not necessary for a planet to have water.
No, because data taken on Mars is not applicable to ocean formation theory on Earth.
No, because a single observation on one planet is not sufficient to discredit a theory.

Answer 1

The correct answer is "No, because a single observation on one planet is not sufficient to discredit a theory".

Step-by-step explanation:

A theory is a proposal that explains observable data often based on scientific information. A theory can be proved and can became a law, or a theory can be discredit. Either two outcomes need the generation and compilation of multiple observations and experiments. It is not possible to discredit a theory with a single observation. In this case, is not possible to discredit the inside-out model of Mars only by stating that volcanic activity has never been observed on Mars.

Answer 2

Based on the given description above, the correct answer would be the last statement. The finding will not prevent the inside-out model from becoming a theory because a single observation on one planet is not sufficient to discredit a theory since this research is still ongoing and doesn't have the definite answer. Hope this helps.