Which statements fail to meet the requirements of a scientific claim? even though evidence indicates that the solar system's planets follow elliptical paths, copernicus's model involving circular orbits is true. in the final 100 meters of a 10,000-meter race, an athlete's speed is more strongly related to anaerobic efficiency than to aerobic efficiency. the evidence supporting newton's laws of motion was accurate in newton's time, but the universe operates differently today. flowers that reflect the most ultraviolet light are more likely to attract bees and other pollinators than flowers that reflect less ultraviolet light.

Which statements fail to meet the requirements of a scientific claim?

1 and 3 seem to be unfounded and inconsistent to be considered a "scientific claim".

The correct answer would be the first and third statements.

A scientific claim is defined as a statement which is a conclusion obtained from numerous experiments and observations.

The scientific claim usually remains the same in the provided conditions.

In the first statement, Copernicus's model stating that the planets revolve in the circular orbits around the sun was not accepted and thus, it is not a scientific claim.

Similarly, Newton's laws of motion are uniform and work properly in the environment. Thus, it also does not form a scientific claim.

i think it's they require warm air

explanation:

tornados usually happen when it's raining right so when it's raining it cools down so if the temperature keeps changing then i think a tornado occurs sorry if it's wrong

c.more precipitation,but only when emission levels.