Question

in which situation would it be least likely for a scientist to revise her experimental methods?
if her results support her hypothesis
if her data do not support her hypothesis
if no conclusions can be drawn from the data
if results are the same after repeating the procedure

Explanation:

When results are consistent after repeating, it indicates reliability. Revising methods is less likely. If data doesn't support hypothesis or no conclusions, methods may need adjustment. Supporting hypothesis might still prompt checks, but consistent results post - repetition strongly suggest current methods are valid.

Answer:

If results are the same after repeating the procedure