the arguments conclusion is that the druid stone in scotland are less/ not as old as druid stones in ireland which are very very old

I thought the flaw was that we didnt know anything about the age of druid stones in scotland to draw a valid conclusion. but its the fact just because druid stones in ireland are very very old doesnt mean they are the only things that can be very very old?

The answer I picked says B. takes the fact that saying most druid stones in ireland have to be very very old is enough to prove that all druid stones of in ireland are very very old

That doesn't mention anything about scotland stones

E. takes the fact that all druid stones in ireland being very very old proves that druid stones in ireland are the only things that are very very old (which means stones in scotland cant be very very old)

I'm confused because If Conclusion is stones in scotland are less old than stones in ireland, that means they arent saying they are very very old anyways

I crossed this out immediately because i thought the argument follows

how do i not make this mistake in the future? and how is the flaw i identified wrong?

Would you be able to say that one form of negation is you can use the force without being a jedi? or is that mixing sufficent and necessary?