This is the topic of my essay for a high school theory of knowledge class. I think that the question implies that all knowledge stems directly (in the case of passive observation) or indirectly (in experimentation) from sensory experience. Or in other words, empiricism is true. Based on that, I talk about reasons that credit or discredit empiricism in paper to reach a conclusion.
But, my teacher has a different interpretation which I can't seem to understand. This mostly stems from her different definition of 'active experimentation'. She claims that experiments here refer to the use of reason, and that they have nothing to do with experience. So, she seems to think that this is a reference to rationalism and to her, the question is asking us to consider if all knowledge stems from either from either experience or reason.
I am really confused by all this talk about rationalism and can't see how experiments imply not relying on experience...