The real question isn't "Does it hurt?" but
"Can the argument survive without it?"Negate B: "The two groups are NOT comparable in pay-determining factors."
The argument
dies immediately. Maybe course-completers were already more experienced, talented, or worked in better markets. The 35% vs 10% difference proves nothing about the course itself.
Negate A: "Fewer than one-third would benefit from taking the course."
The argument
survives. Okay, maybe only 20% would benefit instead of 33%. The education still matters - just less universally than implied. The gap between 35% and 10% can still show importance.
The Judge Test
Scenario 1 (B is false): "Your Honor, we're comparing elite mechanics to beginners. This comparison is worthless."
→ Case dismissed. No evidence.
Scenario 2 (A is false): "Your Honor, maybe 20% benefit, not 33%."
→ Case continues. Education still matters, just debating how much.
catcun
egmat if negated, doesn't A seem to be a more crucial assumption than B?