He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed).
Why is a methos that only produces two branches seen as inferior?
the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses.