Passage A is all about how powerful negative evidence is for science, and the author suggests that Popper exaggerates that power. Throughout the passage, the domain of discussion is science in general. The author never suggests that Popper takes the power of negative evidence too far by extending the idea to other situations (like, say, to law or to basketball). Rather, the author argues Popper exaggerates how powerful negative evidence is for science.

This is the opposite of what Popper does, according to author A. Popper overestimates how powerful negative evidence is.

The author doesn’t suggest any logical fallacy or flaw. She simply says Popper takes the idea that negative evidence is more powerful than positive evidence and runs with that idea too far, exaggerating how powerful negative evidence really is.

When author A says that popper gives the unequal weight between positive and negative evidence “hyperbolic application,” she explains that Popper thought positive evidence “has no value” and one piece of negative context is all it takes to disprove a theory. So she’s saying Popper was taking things to extremes and drawing too radical a conclusion from the fact that negative evidence can be more powerful than positive evidence.

Author A doesn’t refer to any particular theories in the first place. Her discussion is entirely generalized: she says Popper exaggerates the importance of negative evidence to science as a whole.