Which of the following is most likely to make scientific knowledge stronger? A.) Creating new hypotheses

B.) Lack of observational evidence

C.) Few scientists working towards it

D.) Evaluating it with experimentation and argument

D) Evaluating it with experimentation and argument.

Explanation:

If you don't have enough observational evidence, then you can't really strengthen your scientific knowledge, because you haven't collected enough information to answer the questions you're asking.

If you only have a few scientists working on a question, it will take longer to find an answer. With more people working on a concept, it can be solved in more time.

It can be good to create new hypotheses, but only if you've already tested your original hypothesis (with experimentation and argument), and it turned out to be wrong. Once you've rejected your first hypothesis, only then should you make a new one.

you did not give any options thus this is the best answer i can give to you with this little information you have given

> they are both natural and not man made

> they can be tracked and predicted by the right tools

-love shrooms