If an experiment disproves a scientist's hypothesis, what should the scientist do next?

1. Develop a testable question.

2. Revise the hypothesis and try the experiment again.

3. Develop a theory based on the data gathered in the experiment.

4. Change the dependent variable.

Is it 2?

I agree with 2, but not necessarily repeat the same experiment, but rather a revised one.

But there isn't a better option than 2, right?

So is 2 the correct answer?

Yes, the correct answer is 2. If an experiment disproves a scientist's hypothesis, the scientist should revise the hypothesis and try the experiment again. This is because the purpose of conducting experiments is to test hypotheses and gather evidence to support or refute them. If the initial hypothesis is disproven, it means that it does not align with the observed data. Therefore, the scientist should amend the hypothesis, taking into account the results of the experiment, and design a new experiment to gather more data. This iterative process allows scientists to refine their hypotheses and eventually arrive at a more accurate understanding of the phenomenon they are studying.