Which of the following is most likely to make scientific knowledge stronger? A.) Creating new hypotheses

B.) Lack of observational evidence

C.) Few scientists working towards it

D.) Evaluating it with experimentation and argument

D) Evaluating it with experimentation and argument.

Explanation:

If you don't have enough observational evidence, then you can't really strengthen your scientific knowledge, because you haven't collected enough information to answer the questions you're asking.

If you only have a few scientists working on a question, it will take longer to find an answer. With more people working on a concept, it can be solved in more time.

It can be good to create new hypotheses, but only if you've already tested your original hypothesis (with experimentation and argument), and it turned out to be wrong. Once you've rejected your first hypothesis, only then should you make a new one.

the answer is b & c i believe : )

a 20-cm-long, cylindrical graphite (pure carbon) rod is inserted into an oxidizing atmosphere at 1145 k and 1.013 x 105 pa pressure. the oxidizing process is limited by the diffu- sion of oxygen counterflow to the carbon monoxide that is formed on the cylindrical surface.