Or alternativatly, it's deliberate sensationalism and clickbait.
It's for people who do believe that 3 explosion's show trouble. Autor first "agrees" with that, and then explains why it doesn't matter, and SpacX is doing thing right.
It's long form of "Yeah good point , but how about ..."
If it's so dumb for anyone to even ask if three explosions is a problem, why did you do this? Why didn't you just write "Asking if three explosions is a problem is a dumb question to even ask."? Why was it necessary to introduce supporting evidence?
Could it be that you think it's a dumb question because you know these facts? And the article author's job, as a journalist, is to assume, accurately, that most people don't know these facts. Most people are not SpaceX super-fans who have been closely following the test programme. Many will just hear "SpaceX blew up a third rocket" and wonder if things are going wrong, and the author's job, as a professional journalist is to inform those people.