I'm having a hard time understanding how the explanations for the right/wrong answers on these weakening questions don't contradict one another.

PT 86 S1 Q14

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-14/

PT29 S1 Q16

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

In Q14, JY says (C) is incorrect because we don't know whether bats are included in the "most." Whether or not they are included establishes the relevance of this "most" claim -- you have to be included in the "most" otherwise we don't care. With this in mind, I initially eliminated answer (B) while doing Q16. But JY says (B) is the correct answer for Q16 because since some languages lack words for parts of their environment, it isn't surprising that Proto-Indo-European have no word for "sea." They could have still lived by the sea, making the premise less relevant. I'm confused for two reasons. First, we don't know if the Proto-Indo-European speakers are included in the "some," if they aren't included in this group then this claim becomes irrelevant. Second, the reason (B) is correct on Q16 seems in-line with the thought process I used when incorrectly picking (C) for Q14: if most animals normally rarely bite, then it isn't surprising that bats rarely bite. Rabid bats could still bite, making this premise less relevant. I can see why (B) is the best answer for Q16, but now I'm confused about why (C) is wrong for Q14. What am I missing?