Half of the statements contradict the other half. It's null in the sense that he's drawing an Euler diagram where the circles don't intersect. The author might

Half of the statements contradict the other half. It's null in the sense that he's drawing an Euler diagram where the circles don't intersect. The author might have something he meant to say, but he didn't say it -- instead he seems to have just used words he likes. The only thing standing is "unambitious". That's why I don't attempt to rewrite it. There's hardly a coherent thought for me to express differently.