<p>In this question we encounter two problems:</p>

<p><a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/347009/differing-p-values-caranova-anova-post-hoc-in-logistic-regression">Differing p-values car::Anova, anova &amp; post hoc in logistic regression</a></p>

<ul>
<li><p>One problem is about differences between the <em>single</em> p-value for an anova test in relation to the <em>multiple</em> p-values for a Tukey's range test, for each single contrast. The single contrasts had much lower p-values (<em>regarded</em> insignificant) than the p-value for the single anova test.</p></li>
<li><p>One other problem is about a "bug" (which is debatable just abuse of a non-supported feature) in the R-package <code>car::Anova</code> regarding the implementation of the <code>method=brglmFit</code> option (which it doesn't use for the reduced models). This problem seems to me sufficiently on-topic for this website. It is a bit much about bugs in software but in order to tackle it, it does help to have some statistics knowledge.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>The question was initially written rather confusingly, but currently it is in a state that you can reproduce the problem(s).</p>

<hr>

<p>Now the problem from the point of view of a person on stackexchange that wants to answer/solve/help this problem (these questions) is <strong>how to deal with the multiple issues in a single problem?</strong> or <strong>how to deal with complex problems?</strong></p>

<ul>
<li><p>On the one hand: answering such questions can be simple.</p>

<p>(Which, for the specific example, I currently did in comments. But I
was left wondering how to make those comments in an answer or what to
do with the question.)</p></li>
<li><p>But on the other hand: it may be important to correct such questions, cut it down into smaller portions, such that they also remain valuable in the future as part of an easy search-able database of questions.</p></li>
</ul>
