Reason Nine:
He may think that the hadith is countered by evidence that shows it to be weak, abrogated, or subject to figurative interpretation—provided its wording admits such interpretation—and that the counter-evidence is something which, by consensus, is qualified to take precedence, such as a Quranic verse, another hadith, or an ijmāʿ.

This comes in two forms. First, he judges the opposing proof to be, overall, the stronger, so that one of the three possibilities—weakness, abrogation, or interpretation—must apply, without determining which of them in particular. At other times he specifies one of them, declaring the hadith either abrogated or interpreted.

He may then err about abrogation, treating what is in fact later as though it were earlier; and he may err in interpretation, forcing upon the hadith a meaning its wording cannot bear, or one that other evidence overturns. When he raises a counter-text in general terms, it may be that this counter-text does not actually support his claim, or that the hadith he adduces is not equal to the first in strength, whether in its isnād (chain of transmission) or its matn (content).

At this point the earlier reasons—and others besides—can also apply to the first hadith. As for the consensus that is so often alleged, in most cases it is nothing more than ignorance of any dissenting opinion.