Most in need is a superlative expression. Yet there is no analysis why these fraud victims are in fact, "most in need". It's a poor form of rhetorical exaggera

Most in need is a superlative expression. Yet there is no analysis why these fraud victims are in fact, "most in need". It's a poor form of rhetorical exaggeration because everyone knows it's either true tautologically or it's not strictly true and someone can nitpick an example to prove it. The problem identified by the article is that specific state issued EBT cards don't have chips in them. What does that have to do with why card skimming affects those most in need? That's just a method of fraud. It does affect needy people, but what are the proprtions? You expect, based on the title that the article will examine proportions of fraud experienced by peoples of different vulnerabilities. Which is uninteresting to me. California being too lazy to issue EBT cards with chips is much more interesting.