Certainly, a given anecdote might be right or wrong. The thing that seems to follow here, however, is an implied claim that because of the falsity of a given (singular?) data point, somehow the overall narrative becomes unsustainable. However, this means that the claimed truthfulness of the counterpoint is used to support a completely opposing narrative without any further backing. This is, in a round-about way, an appeal to authority that then seemingly provides a complete alternative to a given narrative, seemingly without the need to substantiate the wider claims in their entirety.