It seems to me that he&#x27;s trying to argue a positive hypothesis when his evidence just points to a negative one. He&#x27;s really saying, &quot;get the strategy wrong and execution is impossible.&quot; But basic logic will tell you that&#x27;s not the same thing as what he&#x27;s claiming. It&#x27;s also a lot less controversial and less likely to drive clicks, so perhaps that&#x27;s the reason he tried to overreach in his conclusion.