Question

"A question about a moral issue

is answered by examining facts rather than opinions.
is generally considered a scientific qA scientist conducted an investigation about the effects of diet on disease resistance in mice and made surprising observations. The mice with a genetic ear mutation seemed to show similar patterns of resistance compared to mice with normal ears. Based on this information, what will the scientist most likely do next?
She will perform a second investigation on the role of certain genes in disease resistance.
She will revise her hypothesis to pertain to mutations rather than diet, and update her data accordingly.
She will use this information to determine that her original question was nonscientific, so she will revise it.
She will determine that her hypothesis was not supported because resistance must be genetic.uestion.
cannot be answered with scientific methods.
cannot be debated through discussion."

What is the most appropriate course of action for a scientist who made surprising observations during an investigation on the effects of diet on disease resistance in mice?

A. She will perform a second investigation on the role of certain genes in disease resistance.
B. She will revise her hypothesis to pertain to mutations rather than diet, and update her data accordingly.
C. She will use this information to determine that her original question was nonscientific, so she will revise it.
D. She will determine that her hypothesis was not supported because resistance must be genetic.

Answer 1

The most appropriate course of action for the scientist is to perform a second investigation on the role of certain genes in disease resistance or revise the hypothesis to pertain to mutations.

Step-by-step explanation:

1. The most appropriate course of action for the scientist who made surprising observations during the investigation on the effects of diet on disease resistance in mice is to perform a second investigation on the role of certain genes in disease resistance. This will help determine if the genetic ear mutation is responsible for the patterns of resistance observed.
2. The scientist can revise her hypothesis to pertain to mutations rather than diet, and update her data accordingly. This will align the hypothesis with the observed data and allow for further investigation on the role of ear mutations in disease resistance.
3. Determining that her hypothesis was not supported because resistance must be genetic is another possible course of action. This would lead to a reassessment of the initial hypothesis and a shift in focus towards understanding the genetic factors influencing disease resistance.