I think this argument suffers from the same problem as many arguments of similar kind. It goes like this: if A then B. If B then C. If C then D. It all makes sense. Every single one of these steps makes sense. Except, if you have a chain with five steps and every one of them has a 90% likelihood, the whole chain has only 60% likelihood. And it’s probably less the 90% for each step, in reality. So, you can come up with an entirely plausible reasoning chain, where each step is highly likely to come true, and yet be completely wrong with your overall conclusion.