Yet another science article where a vital gap in reasoning is simply left out. I trust scientists over science journalists, so my guess is that the scientist p

Yet another science article where a vital gap in reasoning is simply left out. I trust scientists over science journalists, so my guess is that the scientist provided an argument, but the writer or editor didn't realize its importance and cut it out of the final piece. Still, you never know. Maybe there will be a better writeup when the study is actually published.