Using multiple methods of observation to "zero in" on the effect of interest is called methodological

Imagine that you are an attorney trying to prove that a certain chemical caused your client's cancer. Your arguments will be more persuasive if your witness is

A) Dr. Fallon, described as highly expert in the field, who simply says, "The chemical causes liver cancer, several other diseases of the liver, and diseases of the immune system." B) Dr. Fallon, described as highly expert in the field, who states, "The chemical leads to tumor induction as well as hepatomegaly, hepatomegalocytosis, and lymphoid atrophy of the spleen and thymus." C) Dr. Bryan, described as moderately expert in the field, who simply says, "The chemical causes liver cancer, several other diseases of the liver, and diseases of the immune system." D) Dr. Bryan, described as moderately expert in the field, who states, "The chemical leads to tumor induction as well as hepatomegaly, hepatomegalocytosis, and lymphoid atrophy of the spleen and thymus."

What are common psychological consequences of several days of heavy cocaine or amphetamine use?

What will be an ideal response?