DaasYochid,
At what point do you admit that you have more than enough and randomly removing a few will not make the results inaccurate?
Here, over 86,000 Neuro-typicals were removed, leaving only 8,500.
This is not a “random few”.
To your point: we are studying 95,000, and I understand and accept that. The study even compares the ratio in the 95k to the ratio in the field and finds them within equal range to be considered accurate. So you don’t need the whole world here, because we both “get” that we’re studying 95k.
If it had been a “random few” as in Meno’s example, perhaps that would be a different story.