Question

I read the Rabbi's book and the either-or argument: that if it is random, then it is not free choice, and if it is cause and effect, that also contradicts free choice. But I did not manage to understand the Rabbi's answer that the argument ignores a third side, and the Rabbi did not explain that side.
Any either-or argument ignores the existence of a third side, because one can understand only two sides, and if one wants to refute the either-or, one needs to explain the third side. And in the case at hand, I understand only two possibilities: if we follow it step by step, at the stage where it turns from information into a decision, there are two possibilities. I would be happy if the Rabbi would explain this to me. Thank you.