In the lab meeting, the principal investigator asked the team to (infer beyond the data, project)
future outcomes from early results, but warned that the preliminary model was not yet (pleasant or acceptable, easy to tolerate)
to the peer reviewers. Because the team planned a multi-year (research tracking the same participants over time, repeated observation)
,
they needed a measurable (stand-in, substitute indicator)
for stress levels, and they also insisted on a carefully matched (comparison set receiving no treatment, baseline sample)
to interpret the intervention fairly. The biologist noted an (benefit-cost compromise shaped by evolution, necessary compromise)
in the species: brighter plumage attracted mates but also predators. Later, a statistician reminded everyone that (a relationship between variables, association)
alone doesn’t prove (a direct cause-effect link, producing an outcome)
,
so they redesigned the protocol to (prevent entirely, make impossible)
alternative explanations. Even then, one (stubbornly resistant, hard to manage)
participant refused to follow the schedule, forcing the team to document every deviation.