You are arguing for a more formal and rigorous statement because it would have certain advantages. You should also note that a less formal and less rigorous com

You are arguing for a more formal and rigorous statement because it would have certain advantages. You should also note that a less formal and less rigorous communication as a rhetorical strategy has it's own advantages. So unless you do a more thorough analysis comparing the two strategies regarding this particular article of communication, your criticism is just quick opinion without "sufficient"[1] effort to limit any prior biases[2]. [1] Quoted because I have no quantification measure. [2] If you are a communications expert then of-course this particular criticism against your quick opinion is not justified.