The article specifically talks about the availability of precision engineering in the concluding section, and attempts to rule it out. Not that the rebuttal is

The article specifically talks about the availability of precision engineering in the concluding section, and attempts to rule it out. Not that the rebuttal is conclusive; I tend to think that you are closer to being correct than the author's conclusion (which is that the inventors themselves are rare). But I think you would need to specifically address the argument in the article rather than claiming that the article failed to consider this point.