Or if your most stupid con act works on a particular set of people, you have struck gold. This is very deliberate on their part. They are not looking for someone possessing any iota of critical thinking skills (the IRS scammers in contrast look for the most easily "scared" demoraphic). They are phishing a different kind of fish.

To misquote Clarke, "sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity".

You're probably familiar with code reuse.

This is conversation reuse. A particular point or observation occurs so frequently that it is documented and described in a common place, and then invoked when needed.

To expand on paulddraper's argument, I felt reusing that conversation spares you and I from my non native english while making my point clearer than I could by myself. I would however be happy to expand on my view if you have more relevant remarks than a meta argument on the form of my response.

In a narrower sense, you're choosing between interpreting a phenomenon (obvious red flags in scams such as Nigerian emails) as being either calculated malice, or malicious in intent but bumbling in implementation. Hanlon's razor still seems to apply.