Final answer:
The statement concerning audit evidence that is not valid is the one that involves subjective interpretations or experiences, as audit evidence should be based on objective observations and verifiability. The option concerning scientific explanations that is not essential is that they strictly pertain to the physical world since explanations can also include non-physical phenomena.
Step-by-step explanation:
Validity of Statements on Audit Evidence
Regarding the discussion on audit evidence, the statement that is not valid concerning audit evidence is likely to be the one that involves subjective interpretations or experiences as evidence. Audit evidence should be based on objective observations and verifiability. For instance, claims about the shape and size of the universe or the nature of subatomic particles rely on scientific testing and objective evidence rather than direct human experience.
In the context of a simple claim, such as verifying if there is a container of milk in the refrigerator, the claim would be true if there is a bottle or wax container of milk. However, if the container had powdered milk or parmalat (which is shelf-stable milk), the claim's validity might depend on the specific circumstances and definitions of what constitutes 'milk' in the given context. However, in an audit, the evidence must be clear and directly observable to support the claim without requiring subjective interpretation.
When evaluating features of scientific explanations, the option that is not an essential feature is: b. They strictly pertain to the physical world. Scientific explanations can extend to concepts and phenomena that are not strictly physical, as long as they can be tested and observed objectively. Hence, scientific knowledge is subject to revision based on the availability of new evidence and further observations.