WGU Integrated Physical Sciences (MTC1) Exam - Topic 3 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for WGU's WGU Integrated Physical Sciences (MTC1) exam

Question #: 2
Topic #: 3

[All WGU Integrated Physical Sciences (MTC1) Questions]

A scientist measures the change in temperature from a chemical reaction over a three-day period in a single experiment. When the scientist analyzes the data, the results are five degrees Celsius higher than reported by other scientists after studying the same reaction.

How can the scientist appropriately resolve this problem?

AOnly include data that matches the results from previous studies

BPublish the results as a contradiction to the previous studies

CPerform the experiment again

DDiscard all of the data and report that the results should have matched previous studies

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

When a scientist's results differ significantly from those reported by others, the appropriate action is to perform the experiment again. Repeating the experiment helps to ensure that the results are accurate and reliable. It allows the scientist to verify their findings and check for any possible errors in the experimental process. Reference:

Integrated Physical Sciences, Chapter 2: Methods of Scientific Investigation

by Royal at Nov 22, 2025, 08:18 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium WGU Integrated Physical Sciences (MTC1) Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Viva

2 months ago

True, but if they find a mistake, it’s worth it to repeat!

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamra

2 months ago

Discarding data is not scientific. Option D is a no-go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Franklyn

2 months ago

But what if the results are still different? Shouldn't they publish it?

upvoted 0 times

...

Alba

2 months ago

I agree! Consistency is key in science.

upvoted 0 times

...

Frederica

3 months ago

I think option C is best. Repeating the experiment ensures accuracy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Melynda

3 months ago

Sounds fishy, I doubt those results are accurate.

upvoted 0 times

...

Virgie

3 months ago

A is just misleading, we need to be honest with the data.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carmelina

4 months ago

I disagree, B could lead to important discoveries!

upvoted 0 times

...

Adelle

4 months ago

Haha, imagine if the scientist just said "Oops, my bad, should've matched the others." Classic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mable

4 months ago

Nah, can't just discard all the data. That's a waste of good science!

upvoted 0 times

...

Mabel

4 months ago

Hmm, I'd say publish the results as a contradiction. Shake things up a bit!

upvoted 0 times

...

Veronika

4 months ago

I feel like the best approach is to perform the experiment again to confirm the findings. So, C seems like the safest choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

James

4 months ago

This reminds me of a practice question where we had to decide between publishing contradictory results or redoing the experiment. I think B could be risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

Paola

5 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like just discarding data isn't a good scientific practice. So, D seems wrong.

upvoted 0 times

...

Royal

5 months ago

I remember discussing how replicating experiments can help verify results, so I think option C makes sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Derick

5 months ago

I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The obvious choice is to perform the experiment again to verify the results. If I get the same outcome, then I should absolutely publish it as a contradiction to the prior studies. I wouldn't want to just include data that matches previous work - that wouldn't be good science.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sue

5 months ago

Okay, I've got this. The key is to not just blindly accept the previous studies. If my results are consistently different, then I need to stand by my data and publish it, even if it contradicts what's been done before. Repeating the experiment is a good idea to confirm, but I shouldn't just throw out my findings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delpha

5 months ago

Option C is the way to go. Gotta double-check that data!

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephaine

5 months ago

C seems like the best option to verify the results.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shawna

6 months ago

Wait, how can one experiment be so different?

upvoted 0 times

...

Antonio

6 months ago

Option B could be risky. It might hurt their credibility.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lemuel

6 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I think the best approach would be to repeat the experiment to see if I can replicate the results. If I get the same findings, then I should probably publish them as a contradiction to the previous studies. But I don't want to just discard all the data.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iola

6 months ago

I'm a bit confused by this question. I'm not sure if I should just go with the results I have or try to match previous studies. Maybe I should do the experiment again to see if I get the same results.

upvoted 0 times