It's weird because it's a valid point, but they go on to elaborate using absurdly misguided arguments.

They're mostly developing on the importance of being smart, all the while misunderstanding what being smart is (it's not grades jesus christ) and failing to establish a correlation between smarts and fitness for a particular task.

How can you expect to make a dent if you spend all your time in a task for which you are unsuited?

I feel like that item ... actually weaves in and out of much of the article and goes from being a question about if you're smart enough in #3 ... but even ties back to point 1 where maybe you don't know the industry, possibly not at all, and the point about assumptions and so forth.

That point almost seems like most of the points tied together.

This might be good advice for ideas that might be good but not in a field that interests you. Then you aren't the right person for the job.

But the "you're not good enough" justification seems misguided.