Agreed that you would probably be rewarded either way, as long as you justified it. Said this previously on AN somewhere.
Edrolo’s reasoning is wrong. Their argument for averaging is that you combine data sets. Each data set is inherently prone to error; therefore, each one gives a fairly inaccurate view of what’s going on, on its own. However, what EdRolo have failed to recognise in presenting the raw data is that you don’t consider an individual data set. You consider multiple data sets together. By taking the average you hide important information, namely that 3/4 showed the change we expected, whereas 1 appears to have been subject to an experimental error.
The average leads us to the wrong conclusion. The raw data do not.
This is always the case. The average is only a narrow snapshot of raw data. The raw data will ALWAYS be more instructive. For someone looking at the raw data, if they want to know the average they can calculate it themselves. You can’t derive the raw data from an average though.