Following this, we evaluated Hypothesis Elimination, focusing on how prompts can guide experimental design to test theoretical distinctions. The Socratic prompt, "What experimental evidence would help differentiate whether this reaction follows an SN1 or SN2 mechanism? Can you propose specific conditions that would eliminate one possibility?" encourages hypothesisdriven exploration by providing a structured framework for differentiating mechanisms through kinetic studies, solvent effects, nucleophile strength, and stereochemical outcomes. This approach enables actionable insights by linking theoretical distinctions to experimental validation, such as testing reaction rates under varying nucleophile concentrations to discern first-order or secondorder kinetics. In contrast, the non-Socratic prompt, "What is the difference between SN1 and SN2 reactions?" offers a comprehensive yet static explanation of the mechanisms, covering kinetics, substrate preferences, and stereochemistry without proposing pathways for practical application or hypothesis testing. The Socratic response connects theoretical distinctions to experimental design, such as testing reaction rates to confirm kinetics. In contrast, the non-Socratic response merely describes distinctions without linking them to measurable experiments. By embedding theory within an experimental framework, the Socratic prompt fosters a rigorous, exploratory approach, whereas the non-Socratic prompt remains a repository of descriptive knowledge with limited utility for advancing scientific inquiry.