I don't understand your reply. If the businesses are in a completely different realm, how is it of any use to know that it works fine for restaurants? How can that possibly serve as an argument for completely different businesses (when it's not even clear they should be businesses, but no need to argue about that). Where is the argument "something like this works in a completely different context" a valid argument?

The article describes how PE works badly in a limited set on industries (monopolies), but uses expansive language and doesn't properly caveat it's argument that PE is bad in general. Parent uses restaurants as an example of a more ordinary competitive business, where academic research exists that shows the benefits of PE.

Your reply doesn't address any of the points of my reply. Once more: Why would it be relevant at all that something works for restaurants, a completely different environment? Mentioning restaurants does not work to refute the article's points.

Yes the article is horrible. It's not even an article. But that does not mean you can now go ahead and use anything to refute it. That's illogical. You have to use good logic even when trying to refute something bad.

The examples in the article are atypical because they are monopolies. Restaurants are typical because they are not monopolies. Academic research about a typical case is high-quality evidence.

The piece clearly went out of its way to avoid any mention of PE successes. The closest they come is mentioning that Fortress claims they "will create jobs and take cars off the road."