Lawyers and scientists use argument to mean a summary of evidence and principles leading to a conclusion; however, a scientific argument is different from a legal argument. A prosecuting attorney constructs an argument to persuade the judge or a jury that the accused is guilty; a defense attorney in the same trial constructs an argument to persuade the same judge or jury toward the opposite conclusion. Neither prosecutor nor defender is obliged to consider anything that weakens their respective cases. On the contrary, scientists construct arguments because they want to test their own ideas and give an accurate explanation of some aspect of nature. Scientists can include any evidence or hypothesis that supports their claim, but they must observe one fundamental rule of professional science. They must include all of the known evidence and all of the hypotheses previously proposed. Unlike lawyers, scientists must explicitly account for the possibility that they might be wrong.

Unlike lawyers, who utilize information   (A)   to support their arguments, scientists must include all information even if some of it is unlikely to   (B)   their arguments.