wendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
wendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
wendy_avl said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding 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.
NurseAsh_DET said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.