Answer: The scientist was repeating the experiment to improve the validity of her data.
Explanation:
<u>The scientific method involves the observation of natural phenomena and then the postulation of hypotheses and their testing by experimentation</u>. The knowledge we have represents scientific hypotheses and theories supported by observations and experiments (empirical method).
Experiments are performed to support/validate or refute one or many hypothesis. Several experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what result occurs when a particular factor is manipulated.
A scientific hypothesis is an acceptable proposition that has been formulated through the collection of information and data, although unconfirmed, serves to provide an alternative answer to a scientifically based problem. Also when a research work is carried out, a conclusion should be drawn, which in these cases is an argument or statement that synthesizes the work done. The main ideas are taken and the research is summarized, explaining in the author's own words the reason for the results obtained. In the case of a discussion, the personal point of view of each of the members that participated in the experiment are exposed.
Since the scientist repeated the previous experiment to improve the validity of her data, that justifies the fact that she skipped the hypothesis and experiment. With the first results of the experiment, I formulate a conclusion. Then, with other results of the same experiment, he formulated another conclusion. So there is no need to repeat the experiment, because it is the same.
