Explaining inconsistency may serve as an important mechanism for driving the process of causal learning. But how might this process generate amended beliefs? One way that explaining inconsistency may promote discovery is by guiding exploratory, hypothesis-testing behavior. In order to investigate this, a study with young children ranging in age from 2 to 6 years (N = 80) examined the relation between explanation and exploratory behavior following consistent versus inconsistent outcomes. Results indicated that for inconsistent outcomes only, the kind of explanation children provided informed the kind of exploratory behavior they engaged in and the extent to which children modified and generated new hypotheses. In sum, the data provide insight into a mechanism by which explaining inconsistent evidence guides causal cognition.