In scientific inquiry, which statement best describes how hypotheses are tested during research?

Introduction / Context:
This question examines your understanding of how scientific inquiry actually works, especially in relation to hypotheses and experiments. Many students mistakenly think that science is about proving hypotheses or that every test must involve a laboratory experiment. In reality, scientific methods are more flexible and emphasise testing, evidence, and revision rather than final proof. The question asks you to identify the statement that correctly reflects this process.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Several statements describe goals of scientific research and the role of experiments.
• One statement mentions testing hypotheses about historical events without experiments.
• Another claims that unsupported results always imply a bad experiment.
• You must choose the statement that best matches real scientific practice.

Concept / Approach:
Science is based on forming testable hypotheses, gathering evidence, and revising ideas in the light of data. A crucial point is that science does not “prove” hypotheses in an absolute sense; instead, hypotheses are supported, refined, or rejected. Evidence can come from controlled experiments, natural observations, field studies, simulations, or analysis of existing data. In fields like astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology, many hypotheses refer to past events that cannot be recreated in a lab, yet they can still be tested by comparing predictions with observations. When an experiment does not support a hypothesis, scientists do not automatically blame the experiment; they critically evaluate both the experimental design and the hypothesis itself.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Textbooks on scientific method emphasise that science involves testable hypotheses, careful observation, and willingness to modify ideas. They highlight that in many sciences controlled experiments are not always possible, but hypotheses are still evaluated by comparing predictions with data, such as fossil records or astronomical observations. Philosophers like Karl Popper also stress that hypotheses can be falsified but never absolutely proved. This matches option B and contradicts the absolute language of options A and C, confirming that B is correct.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

The primary goal of scientific research is to prove a stated hypothesis true once and for all is wrong because science seeks robust, testable explanations, not final proof; theories remain open to revision.

If experimental results do not support a hypothesis, it always means the experiment was poorly designed is incorrect because unexpected results may reveal that the hypothesis itself is incomplete or wrong.

All of the above statements accurately describe scientific inquiry is wrong because options A and C clearly misrepresent how science operates.

Common Pitfalls:
Many learners think that science equals lab experiments and final proofs, which leads them to accept statements like A or C. Another pitfall is ignoring observational and historical sciences, assuming that anything non experimental is unscientific. To avoid these mistakes, remember that science is about testing hypotheses, gathering evidence from many sources, and revising ideas, not about proving them once and for all or blaming the experiment whenever results disagree.