The problem isn't the pure math. It's the assumptions and conclusions.
>a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive...
The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3".
Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger.
The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline.
My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.