I agree with the first part but question the second. It appears that the author was off by precisely one order of magnitude, having mixed up .13% and 1.3%. It

I agree with the first part but question the second. It appears that the author was off by precisely one order of magnitude, having mixed up .13% and 1.3%. It could be chance, but I think it’s probably a simple mathematical error. The author's conclusion (2-3 children over a career) is correct, but the intermediate step is mistaken.