I recently made a question about giant mechs. I was criticized heavily for not justifying my answer by not having mechs, as mechs are scientifically implausible.
For example Graham said this.
@NepeneNep If you're changing the laws of physics (or adding a substantial element such as magic) then we do need to know how that works. That is the most fundamental feature of the environment in which the plot happens, and hence it is fundamental to events that can happen to the characters - which amounts to writing your plot, which is out of bounds. More obviously though, no-one can give you a good answer if you don't tell us what those constraints are. You've found fault with all the answers so far - and all those issues come from you not giving us a well-constructed question.
My thoughts was that you're allowed to have absurd premises like mechs being the best financial choice, and that you don't need to justify according to the laws of science every question. What do people think is the right answer?