Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Following on from JessicaH_TX — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
claudia_zurich said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsclaudia_zurich said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Happy to go further on any of that.