B) We have data for vintage years, but not necessarily firms. I don't think its a terrible generalization to say that the last 10 or 15 vintage years represents VC firms now in business, else there are funds that have been open for 15 years and I believe they usually have a fixed lifetime of less than that.
C) Given points A and B, do you still believe they are drawing their conclusion (and poorly so) only from 10 year returns?