Warning: low flying propositional logic. It's something that is commonly taught to law and philosophy students, not only mathematicians.

> If your assertion of people own blenders were true, there would be no whipped cream shortage [...]

Let's take it from here. My assertion was that people own blenders for more than just whipped cream. In other words, I claim that people use blenders also for other things.

Given the article's claim that there is "whipped cream shortage" and how implication ("if..then..") works, you basically say that my assertion is invalid, meaning that people only use blenders for whipped cream.

Now go back and rethink what your stance is and how to convey it, because you surely didn't mean that.

No and I knew it was flawed when I was typing it. I ran out of the will to fix it.

I am deeply suspicious of your cost-of-ownership claim. I own a small hand blender that cost next to nothing and I forget I own it until eggnog season, whereupon I use it to beat literally gallons of cream.

Perceived TCO then.

My point being is that plenty of people don't want to own a blender and obviously are happy paying to outsource their whipped cream requirements.