@_ The argument here is that there is no need to look further for an explanation, with the reasoning being that the difference in methods of investigation explains the difference in results. This reasoning only works if different methods would always lead to different results. If different methods do not always produce different results, then further explanation would be needed. If two different methods can yield identical results then their argument collapses, which points out the flaw of the missing justification for why different methods leads to difference in results means that no further explanation is needed. This was my interpretation, at least. I hope this helps!

Sent you a message!

Just sent you a message!