I am currently pursuing a PhD degree and I do not yet have a lot of experience submitting journal articles. I recently submitted an article to an IEEE journal in my field. Around two months ago I got the publication decision "revise and resubmit".
The three reviewers were generally positive about the work and mostly asked questions related to the notation as well as further theory based questions which I think I all answered and added to the revision.
However, there is one comment which is a bit unclear to me. The reviewer there essentially asks a question of the type "why was the measurement X in experiment Y conducted in this manner, this needs to be clarified". Similarly, the associate editor asks a question related to the same experiment "in order to support claim Z of the paper, Z needs to be demonstrated". (Neither AE nor reviewers explicitly ask for additional experiments of a certain kind).
Basically, I believe the experiments I conducted already demonstrate Z, though I did probably not explain clearly enough as to why this is the case.
Right now in my answer to the reviewers and the AE, I essentially explain why I think my experiments support the claim in question and I also explain this more clearly in the revised manuscript.
In principle, I could think of additional experiments to gather further evidence for my claim, however, it is unlikely that these experiments would offer better support for my claim (since the associated measurements would be less accurate). I also mention this in my reply. Moreover, these experiments would be associated with a significant amount of work that I think would be outside the scope of the submission.
I wonder how risky it is to resubmit my revised manuscript without offering any additional experimental data and instead, explain why I think the work I did already supports my claim? If the AE does not agree, is it common to get a second chance at revision or is it more likely that the paper will be rejected?