Scientific consensus supports the idea that living organisms require oxygen. Then, a scientist discovers a type of bacteria that metabolizes sulfur instead of oxygen, and thus survives in environments without oxygen. The scientist concludes that a diverse group of many different organisms could live in an oxygen-free environment. Why should are some scientists skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion?

scientists should be skeptical as such a discovery is truly revolutionary and also incredibly easyily fabricated. they also might sight the lone scientist as being the reason for their skepticism as it was one scientist and not a team of scientist and has probably not been tested.

Answer Link

angelzgarcia3035 angelzgarcia3035 · Answer 2 · 2021-01-11T08:58:25+01:00

Answer:

(A) The conclusion needs to be supported by more evidence.

Explanation:

It is not enough to find some type of bacteria that can live in an oxygen-free environment to conclude there are many different organisms that also can. It is necessary to know what mechanisms of the organisms are responsible for such characteristics that help them survive in environments without oxygen. There must be more evidence from different group of organisms that will confirm the conclusion.