[pvaldes]

It seems that the test was 'average' value in 1 x B against 'maximum' value in 50 x A. Different measures (and not totally fair game). There is a bigger probability of doing something well just by chance if you repeat the test more times.

[nothrabannosir]

Not exactly comparable; the 1xB group had (took) a lot more time for their pot, and consciously spent more effort on making it look good. They actively went for max, while the 50x group didn't even go for it.

[pvaldes]

Making it look good is not the time that counts really here. Extra time is useful only in some parts of the process. Cooking time would be similar in both cases for each piece and this is the critical part.

"went for max" would mean here more ornamentation and bigger pieces. Is easy to cook perfectly a small pot, but the challenge is hugely increased if you are expected to produce bigger, more fragile pieces, with more parts that can fall off, and a structure that needs to carry more weight. 'A' can afford to play safe and small in this game, 'B' can't. You would need to be 'good' to be sucessful playing the A game, but would have to be 'a master' to be successful in B group.

No only they are different levels of challenge. Is a different level of learning. Even if A can do small and simple pieces, we can't say that are better than B in this sense (nobody had evaluated B doing small pieces). The opposite is also true. There is not guarantee that A are ready for the bigger pieces at the end of the course and wouldn't fall for the same errors than B.