> having identified a statistical anomaly, she is assuming one explanation That is where you are going askew. There are two ways to derive knowledge from data

> having identified a statistical anomaly, she is assuming one explanation That is where you are going askew. There are two ways to derive knowledge from data. A) Start with a theory. Generate falsifiable hypothesis. Perform observation that validates or contradicts hypothesis. B) Start with statistical anomaly. Generate hypothesis (or hypotheses). Validate with more data. Your objection assumes that the author took path B. She did not, she took path A: Starting with the hypothesis, and looking for confirming or disconfirming data. The fact that there are other possible explanations is a valid point, but what you are doing is starting down path B, with your starting point being half-way through someone else's path A. It's a valid point, but it's not really an objection. In this approach, it would be a next-step, not something expected at this stage. Sidenote: Most programmer-types seem to implicitly assume path B when reading research results. I assume this is because path B is how data-mining and machine learning work. Historically, path A is the more common approach, and is closer to the definition of the scientific method. Path B has only opened up recently, since data-collection has become more ubiquitous.