No, I disagree. Your critique is shallow even for it's relative prominence. The article literally opens with a counterpoint that you shouldn't generally use this as an excuse. What you said in your comment acts almost as perfect critique for itself: it sounds right, but it has zero substance. Why should anyone value a critique that says almost zero actual things about the article and instead draws a general conclusion that sounds like it came from purely reading the headline?

Having the article state that you "shouldn't use it as an excuse" is probably about as effective as the surgeon generals warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes.

What makes you believe that quick disclaimer would discredit the claim the OP is making?

This is an invalid critique of the article. It is critiquing it for something it doesn't do, now justified by the idea that people might ignore what it actually says.