I find it always a bit strange if somebody says that something “could have” a large impact. The only way to prove this wrong is to prove that it is logically or

I find it always a bit strange if somebody says that something “could have” a large impact. The only way to prove this wrong is to prove that it is logically or after all we know empirically impossible that large impact could arise. Also this does not give much information until we talk about probabilities and the exact nature of the impact. I read the article thoroughly, but the findings seem actually only about the fact that there will be an estimated 40% slowdown in circulation.