I've reread it 3-4 times, and I'm having a hard time understanding what the argument is. Typically, you'd expect something like

> if p, then q

> if q, then z

but this article reads as

> if p, then q

> if z, then m

Except that it's all wrapped in language - the ideas look like they should flow together, but they don't. There are probably missing steps in the analysis. Might be a case of over-summarization by the journalist.