> You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter.

Not really, the article is about a belief some other approach would be preferable based on superficial and specious reasoning.

My example proved that this kind of superficial and simplistic analysis fails to account for critical aspects which are key to explain why a decision was made.

This doesn't go away by complaining that I refuted your point while I could easily not refute it.

The whole argument is silly, if you think about it. What could possibly possess anyone to believe they are the only ones who know better and everyone else in the world who disagrees is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing?