On Matthew's account of the temptation of Jesus in the desert, the exchanges between the tempter and Jesus are recorded for three temptations. The last one ending with Jesus sending the tempter away: Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ (SBLGNT).
Focusing on Jesus's reactions to the first two unrighteous proposals, found on verses 4.4 and 4.7 of Matthew, upon translation:
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. ... 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (KJV Matthew 4.4,7 emphasis added)
and (randomly) listing other translations' corresponding take for the terms above in bold, we have (this is by no means a comprehensive list): ASV: said, said / YLT: said, said / DARBY: said, said / DLNT: said, said / ESV: --, said / EXB: --, answered / LEB: said, said
In the original we have two different verbs, the second one, ἔφη, being the imperfect active indicative of φημί. Zodhiates  first lists meanings for φημί such as "generally to say, speak", but then later admits meanings like "Emphatically, meaning to affirm, assert" and lists synonyms for it as διαβεβαιόομαι "to affirm confidently", and διϊσχυρίζομαι "to assert vehemently".
With these possibilities in mind, translating εἶπεν by "said" seems pretty straightforward, but translating ἔφη also as "said", as several translations do seems to hide an important nuance of the exchange: a possible escalation on Jesus part during the exchange (which culminated in Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, as noted above) as more clearly laid out by CLNT.
With the CLNT translation I get much more out of this passage. Instead of seeing/picturing (i) a cool, neutral, serial and steady dismissal of the tempter's deceptions, or even a (ii) hungry, weakening Jesus that was sweating to do the right thing, I see a (iii) perfectly righteous, increasingly bold Jesus, actually "offended" with the devil's proposals–one that did not find the devil's temptations appealing or even attractive (as preachers say they are to many of us).
Now to the question:
I'm really impressed of how frequently translators seem to overlook things like this. It took a translation with an explicit philosophy of consistency and exactness in which different words (or lemmas) in the original must be rendered differently in the target language (English) for this nuance to show up! (I'm not endorsing the CLNT, OK? I'm citing it only because it was through the CLNT that I realized the original brings different verbs: εἶπεν and ἔφη).
Based on this case, what are the arguments (not opinions!) (pro and con) of translating differently different words in the original, even if they seem to be synonymous?
I'd appreciate if answers would explicitly name the translation philosophy(ies) that are being discussed.