Author A claims this.

But author B has no opinion on Popper. Nothing suggests he’d be skeptical of this claim.

Author A mentions this as a perspective held by Popper.

Author B would be skeptical, because he provides support against this claim. In passage B, positive evidence plays a role in supporting two theories. Observations of Uranus’s orbit aligned with what Newton’s laws predicted, once Neptune was accounted for. This was positive evidence in support of Newton’s laws. And observations of Mercury’s orbit aligned with what Einstein’s theory predicted. This was positive evidence in supporting Einstien’s theory.

Author A claims this.

But author B wouldn’t be skeptical; he’d agree. He notes in P1 that auxiliary premises (what he confusingly refers to as auxiliary “assumptions”) were needed in order to derive predictions of Uranus’s orbit from Newton’s laws.

Author A claims this.

But we have no reason to think author B would be skeptical. He doesn’t suggest that positive and negative evidence are equally powerful. In fact, he doesn’t comment on the relative power of different kinds of evidence at all.

Author A mentions this as a perspective held by Popper.

But we have no reason to think author B would be skeptical. In fact, passage B gives an example of a theory (Newton’s theory of gravity) being refuted.