I sent a manuscript for publication last month and I just got it back with major revision. There were two reviewers who peer-reviewed the manuscript and both seem to have different opinions regarding the content. One reviewer asked me to omit a graph as he/she deemed it to be useless and didn't add to study narrative while another one commented on improving the graph. They also have different views on sample size of my experiment. One of them though our sample size was small while another one agreed on sample size with only improvement on statistical analysis conducted. They also had divided views on study design. One of them thought our study design was flawed and we should go back to the lab to perform additional tests while another reviewer thought our study design was okay with only missing statistical analysis.  How should I approach this?
A bit of background, I am doing research in atmospheric physics and detection systems  Recently, I received a paper submission back with revisions suggested by a couple of reviewers.  For the most part, the revisions were definitely constructive, justified and most importantly, helpful.    That is, except on one particular crucial aspect of the paper where both reviewers made suggestions, that they labelled as critical for the paper's success.  However, the suggestions were directly opposite.  i.e. Both suggestions are mutually exclusive, but equally feasible.    What is an effective means to address this conflict?  I have spoken to my academic supervisor and he is not sure how to proceed either and we have double checked and both suggested paths are feasible.
MWE:  \documentclass{article} \begin{document} $\wedge{\small\wedge}{\tiny\wedge}$ \end{document}   All the \wedges have the same size...