Arthur conducts a controlled experiment several times. The results of each test show that his hypothesis is not supported. Which of these best describes why this hypothesis is still valuable?

Hello. You did not inform the experiment that Arthur is conducting, which makes it impossible for your question to be answered accurately. However, I will try to help you in the best possible way.

The hypothesis is an assumption that is made before the experiment is carried out. This hypothesis is formed with the observation of some phenomenon of nature where the researcher believes that two or more elements interact to form a result. In this case, the experiment is carried out to determine whether the assumption, that is, the hypothesis is false or true. In the event that an experiment determines that the hypothesis is false, two things may have occurred: (a) the experiment was set up, or analyzed incorrectly, (b) the elements tested have no relation to the observed phenomenon.

k :)

Explanation: