Question

a company advertises a product that repels mosquitoes using energy waves but provides no peer - reviewed studies. which reasoning best supports the conclusion that the claim is pseudoscientific? it involves insects and sound it is marketed on social media it lacks testable, verifiable evidence it was tested in a lab once experimental results that do not support a hypothesis can often be very valuable. why? they can be labeled as a theory instead of a law. they can be changed to match the hypothesis for the published article. they can cause scientist to develop new experiments that produce additional data. they can cause incompetent scientists to lose their jobs and make room for better scientist.

Explanation:

First Question (about pseudoscientific claim):

Pseudoscience lacks scientific rigor, especially testable/verifiable evidence. The company’s claim has no peer - reviewed (tested/verified) studies. “Involves insects and sound” is irrelevant, social media marketing doesn’t define pseudoscience, and “tested in a lab once” would be scientific (but the claim has no such evidence). So the reasoning about lacking testable evidence is correct.

Experimental results against a hypothesis are valuable as they prompt scientists to develop new experiments for more data. Labeling as theory/law is incorrect (theory and law are different), changing results is unethical, and job loss of scientists is not the purpose of such results. So the option about causing new experiments is correct.

Answer:

It lacks testable, verifiable evidence

Second Question (about experimental results not supporting hypothesis):