Sure, but the author should have relied on those examples instead of creating some sort of bizarre hypothetical narrative to argue his point. I find it's always

Sure, but the author should have relied on those examples instead of creating some sort of bizarre hypothetical narrative to argue his point. I find it's always telling when an argument is based on hypotheticals or "thought experiments". It generally means that the author had to literally make stuff out of thin air to argue their point. It's antiscientific at best and disingenuous at worst.