Question

in 2010, felicia wolfe - simon published a paper in the journal science, claiming that she had found bacteria that could substitute arsenate for phosphate in their dna. not only were some of the data misinterpreted, but the conclusions drawn from them were also overstated. unfortunately, the original reviewers failed to accurately assess the work prior to its publication. which of the following criteria of real science did felicia wolfe - simon’s work fail to meet? click or tap the appropriate place in the image. 3 has the hypothesis generated testable and falsifiable predictions? 4 is there a carefully designed, reproducible experiment with sufficient sample sizes, clearly identified experimental variables, and control groups? 5 did scientific conclusions logically follow from analysis of the experimental results to support, or fail to support, the hypothesis?

Explanation:

The work misinterpreted data and over - stated conclusions, so scientific conclusions didn't logically follow from results.

Answer:

No for 5. Did scientific conclusions logically follow from analysis of the experimental results to support, or fail to support, the hypothesis?