This is FINALLY the answer on here that got me to see why B is wrong. The whole time I was struggling to accept B was wrong because it is so dependent on what you consider as "almost all" and what you consider to be a large survey of scientists. As you play around with the numbers and the size of the survey, you can see that you can really walk the line of arriving at a "most" conclusion depending on how you interpret "almost all". The whole time I couldn't help but thinking that the LSAC would not open themselves up to such a dispute of what "almost all" constitutes... they can't have people coming to them disputing this question because almost all could be interpreted by 75% or 80% or 60%.... BUT by looking at this as A MUST be true and B could be true, it totally absolves this dispute because it allows for the interpretation of almost all to be on their side.

Also you do in a way have to assume A in order to even consider B, but I thought that the "most" issue was more pressing assumption than A was.... because if B wasn't true, then it doesn't even matter if the scientists know because the severity of the conclusion is flawed.

I'm not sure I understand why all is a subset of most. I understand that if all, then most, this makes sense to me. Logically i understand that. However, when we put it in terms of all being the subset and most being the superset that falls apart in my mind. Doesnt all encompass many? #help