Why is a statement like "Venus has a lot of mountains" insufficient for drawing a firm scientific conclusion?

It is a statement that cannot be proven false.

It lacks specific, quantifiable data.

It was not collected using an optical telescope.

It might discourage future space missions.

A scientist is comparing two reports about a newly discovered asteroid. Report A states, "The asteroid's surface is bumpy." Report B states, "The asteroid has 87 impact craters with an average diameter of 2.1 km." Why would the scientific community find Report B more valuable?

Because it suggests the asteroid is very old.

Because describing craters is always the top priority in asteroid studies.

Because it provides specific, measurable data that can be verified and analyzed.

Because the term 'bumpy' is scientifically inaccurate for describing an asteroid.

A vague, subjective observation

A measurement taken only one time

Data that contradicts the hypothesis

An observation from a remote satellite

Because the student did not repeat the experiment multiple times.

Because the observation is a vague description rather than a measurable detail.

Because chemical reactions are expected to be interesting.

Because the observation was not recorded using a video camera.

It makes the research faster to complete.

It helps scientists rule out incorrect explanations.

It guarantees the conclusion will be popular.

It confirms the scientist's initial hypothesis.