OP explicitly listed the text explaining that in the case you describe the bank cannot refuse to reimburse you. Essentially, the burden of the proof is on them, not on the customer.
Suppose you had one legitimate transaction, and one fraudulent transaction. Now, suppose the bank had certain evidence to show that the legitimate transaction is legitimate that is sufficient from a legal perspective to refuse your refund request. Then, suppose the bank had no such evidence to show for the fraudulent transaction.
And now pay attention: THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ONE OF THOSE THAT THEY DO HAVE FOR THE OTHER MEANS THAT THE BANK CAN DISTINGUISH THEM. Got it?
I was talking about cases where the bank is NOT ABLE TO DISTINGUISH an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making.
We are not making the point you think we are.
We're all clear that if the bank can distinguish, they must refund legitimate cases, but that's not what we're trying to explain either. Responding to your last paragraph alone:
"I was talking about cases where the bank is not able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. Your response "but if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you!11" is just completely irrelevant to the point that I was making."
My response is not "if they are able to distinguish them, they have to refund you". It is "if they are _not_ able to distinguish them, they have to refund you".