They said both sides are made up of the worst. Not both sides are the worst.
The key difference between your interpretation and how it’s written is the mutual exclusivity. By stating ‘they are the worst’, then yes only one would be the worst. But to say “both are comprised of” doesn’t bring about the same exclusivity as the former.
Imagine there are two benches, if I say to you, both are made up of wood; you wouldn’t then turn around say only one bench could possibly be wood. The same is still true if I say ‘the two benches are made up of the worst wood’. Bench A is 95% worst wood, whereas bench B is 50% worst wood, Both are made up of the worst wood; but one is lesser worst wood, and the statement ‘both benches are made up of the worst wood’ is still true.
They said both sides are made up of the worst. Not both sides are the worst.
The key difference between your interpretation and how it’s written is the mutual exclusivity. By stating ‘they are the worst’, then yes only one would be the worst. But to say “both are comprised of” doesn’t bring about the same exclusivity as the former.
Imagine there are two benches, if I say to you, both are made up of wood; you wouldn’t then turn around say only one bench could possibly be wood. The same is still true if I say ‘the two benches are made up of the worst wood’. Bench A is 95% worst wood, whereas bench B is 50% worst wood, Both are made up of the worst wood; but one is lesser worst wood, and the statement ‘both benches are made up of the worst wood’ is still true.