UrRong! It's not as simple as saying that there are multiple causes and we must explore their relative importance—that's just a shallow attempt to sidestep the issue and neuter any meaningful debate. If we want to glean real insight, we should first acknowledge that one factor may indeed be dominant in producing the outcome in question. To deny this possibility is to ignore Nikhil's original point, which was that it's reductive and unhelpful to simply say "it's a bit of both" when asked about two plausible causes for something.
Surely the retort to the original essay is missing the forest for the trees here. The point is not to completely discount the presence of multiple causes, but rather to recognize that one factor may be more influential than the other—to seek out the dominant contributing factor to a given outcome and probe it further. By refusing to choose sides, we ultimately detract from the discussion rather than contribute to it.
Sure, there may be multiple causal factors at play, but why can't we identify which one is most dominant? And what's wrong with defending a side? That's how progress is made, after all—by having debates and arguments in order to better understand an issue.
In conclusion, let's all take a lesson from Nikhil: let's stop ignoring facts and being complacent in our assertions by lazily citing mere "multiple causation", and instead strive to identify which factor is most influential in producing a given outcome. Let's quit hiding behind "it's a bit of both" and begin taking sincere stances on important topics. UrRong!