I heard that one of the key qualities of a good candidate is to always be hypothesis driven when approaching a case. My question is how explicit do you have to be when doing it in the actual interview? One way to do it is to be very explicit by saying "My hypothesis is that the profit decreases due to the market problem, and I am going to test if my hypothesis is correct" but sometimes this could sound too textbook and even for some people jumping to conclusion. the second way is to indicate that you have a hypothesis in your head and indicate it to the interviewer, something like "Well, I see that profitability has gone down and this could be the result of the market failure" or something like that. Would this be enough? Which way is better?