When a scientific investigation produces evidence that does not support the hypothesis, what can you conclude about the investigation? (2 points)
a) a law has been formed.
b) a theory remains accurate.
c) a theory has been disproved.
d) more investigations need to be completed.
pls

Ok i just took this exam the above answer was wrong the real answer should be: More investigations must be completed.

The correct answer is option D, More investigations need to be completed

Explanation:

When a scientific investigation produces evidence that does not support the hypothesis, some lacuna must have occurred in the research process. Therefore it is the duty of the researcher to look for the missed out things and lead the research in the right direction. The researcher may not be able to find the exact issue in the research, thus his first step would be to find the stage at which the fault has occurred and then  rectify it. After that the researcher must do further detailed investigation to collect the evidence that support the hypothesis and thus complete the investigation.

answer: is this like gg x gg

explanation:

idk

you did not attach the discourse, but i assume it to be the discourse on the origin and basis of inequality among men (the original titile in french is: "discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes"), also know as "second discourse". in this discourse, jean-jacques rousseau emphasizes that private property is the basis of all inequalities.

therefore, what enabled the old regime to maintain as long as it did was private property.