We're told that only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice. Sometimes it is easier to understand with numbers.
Let's say there are ten people in a room. Two out of the ten engage in political action out of a sense of social justice, and the other eight engage in political action for some reason other than out of a sense of social justice. In this case we know that people who do not have a sense of justice engage in political action (8 of the 10), and we know that people who have a sense of social justice engage in political action (2 out of the 10), but we do not know that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action. We simply do not have enough information to make that conclusion; it might be the case that the only two people in the world who have a sense of social justice are in that room, and both of them do engage in political action. So, the fact that, as it states in the stimulus, only a minority of people who have sense of social justice engages in political action, does not mean that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.
Similarly, we're told that most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic awards.
Again, let's take 10 scholars in a room. This time, 8 of the ten are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award. This means that we know for a fact that some of the scholars (2 out of 10) are motivated by a desire to win a prestigious academic award. We also know that most scholars (8 out of 10) are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award. We do not know, however, that any non-scholars are motivated to win a prestigious academic award. It might be the case, that the only people in the world who are motivated to win a prestigious academic award are the eight scholars already mentioned.
The flaws are the same because they draw conclusions based on insufficient information.