Rejection of the word “va amina” in the Gemara

There are no rules about this, but there is a principle that those who are in disagreement do not explain (they minimize disagreements as much as possible). This is a variation on Occam’s razor. Similarly, when moving from the premise to the conclusion, one tries to make the innovation/change as small as possible. Any claim that there is something greater (beyond this minimum) is a proof. Therefore, by default, it is better to leave the explanation and change something practical or side. This of course also depends on the language of the Gemara, so my words are only if both options are included in it. Beyond that, one must search for different perceptions in parallel issues and see what the conclusion fits. If the view of the OT is proven from parallel issues, then it is likely that it also remains the conclusion, and vice versa.