Maybe the author wasn't wrong in the facts presented. But maybe he wasn't giving the another perspective that would alter your perception or understanding of whatever picture he was trying to paint. If you aren't given the full context, then you haven't fully understood the situation.

If partial truths always lead to the correct conclusion, we would never have wrong convictions in courts caused by incomplete evidence.

Or to bring the analogy closer to home, if we know only some (but not all) of the use cases, we can't know if our solution truly and completely solves whatever problem we're trying to solve. Maybe Floegipoky knows of another "use case" (insight) here that Dan Lyons happened to leave out.