To critique scientific arguments and increase the validity of scientific evidence, scientists

•replace the data and conclusions from experiments that fail.

•design new experiments to prove other scientists are wrong.

•repeat their tests until they get the desired results.

•review the experiments and conclusions of other scientists.

To critique scientific arguments and increase the validity of scientific evidence, scientists review the experiments and conclusions of other scientists.

Explanation:

Scientific argumentation is the process of agreeing or disagreeing a scientific concept, theory or explanations.

To produce a scientific argument critiques employ various elements of scientific arguments like the evidence, reasoning, interaction, and competing claims.

Scientific argumentation is an evidence-based process to prove a scientific claim.

A scientific theory can best be argued by reviewing its evidence. Scientific evidence provides the basic information or data or resources which supports the scientific claim in the argument. Scientific critiques use these evidences and review with that of other experiments based on their results and conclusions by other scientists to validate their claim.

Replacing data or conclusions from experiments will be forging the original details. Designing new experiments or repeating the same tests for getting new results will give new dimensions but will not prove the existing theory.