Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

say 1% judges and 1% politicians = leaders are non-corrupt, non nexused and non nepotic. (corruption can be via cash or via media coverage)
,
say, 1% journalist, 1% leaders, 1% political science professors, 1% economics professor, 1% economists and 1% activists are 100% UNPAID and 100% honest and rest 99% in all category are paid.
.
------
.
Question ---- So what are the damages in following statements
.
(a) every judge is corrupt / nexused / nepotic judge

(b) every leader = politician is corrupt / nexused / nepotic leader = politician .
.
(c) every journalist is a paid-journalist

(d) every political science professor is a paid political science professor

(e) every economics professor is a paid economics professor

(f) every economics professor is a paid economics professor

(g) every economist is a paid economist
.
(h) every activist is a paid activist
.
All statements have 1% inaccuracy. But other than that, is there any damage if listener starts believing "100% instead of 99%"?
.
=============
.
.
Let me add and clarify the issue
.
(1) say X says "100% judges are corrupt, nexused and / or nepotic"
.
Say reality is that only 95% were corrupt or nexused or nepoitic
.
Say everyone in audience believed X and so everyone in audience started believing that all judgs are corrupt , nepotic and nexused
.
So there is some "loss" to society.
.
(2) say X says "100% activists are money / fame or power corrupt"
.
Say reality is that only 99.88% are so
.
Say everyone in audience believed X and so everyone in audience started believing that all activists ate corrupt.
.
So there is some "loss" to society.
.
Compare and contrast losses in both cases
.
Likewise, how much is damage in following wrong statements if taken as right by all voters "all 100% journalists are paidjournalists", "all 100% economists are paideconomists" and so on. In case, statement is say 1% to 5% wrong