- This was written by Chassam Sofer in a responsum to R. Moshe Gluga (dayan of Zelem/Deutschkreutz) relating to a prior correspondence they had regarding a question posed by the latter. R. Sofer dismissed the question , one reason being that it would it would call into question the particular opinions of Tosafos R. Isaiah de Trani (Ria"z). In the ensuing resp., CS tells RSG:
ואם אולי יש את נפשו תירוץ אחר... יודיעני ואודה לו ובלבד שתירוצו יהי' גם כן סברה ואפילו מדוחק, כי הדוחקים רובם אמתיים, אמנם השכליים וההמצאות רובם שקר, והם המכסים פני האמת וגורמים לבעליהם להחזיק בשקר בתורת ה', כי רע בעיניהם להודות על האמת ולעזוב החריפות שלהם
My attempt at a loose trasn.:
...If you have an answer to reconcile the Tosafos and Ria"z... let me know it and I'll thank you, even if strained as long it is rational because most strained answers are true. However, savvy and novel ones are mostly false; they only obfuscate the truth and give way for the respondents to perpetuate falsity in Toarh, because it is hard for them to admit to truth and withdraw from their harifus..." (Chassam Sofer, Kovetz Tshuvos EH no. 82)
- I don't know an explicit source expressing exactly this but I don't think this is such a grand observation. In context, CS was illustrating how much pilpul and harifus that was (is) common is fallacious whereas sensible, rational answers, even if they don't exactly fit, are more accurate and plausible answers. This sentiment was echoed by many rabbis, much before CS too.
- I do not know of anyone disagreeing with this sentiment.
Returning to your opening query, IMO, CS did not mean that such an answer would be the correct answer, rather, it is more likely [than the second class].