I think this argument suffers from the same problem as many arguments of similar kind. It goes like this: if A then B. If B then C. If C then D. It all makes sense. Every single one of these steps makes sense. Except, if you have a chain with five steps and every one of them has a 90% likelihood, the whole chain has only 60% likelihood. And it’s probably less the 90% for each step, in reality. So, you can come up with an entirely plausible reasoning chain, where each step is highly likely to come true, and yet be completely wrong with your overall conclusion.
Why is 90% for each step such an insurmountable probability?
Maybe it's completely unreasonable for you to assume the causation for each step isn't on the order of 99%. Your argument is too abstract to be a relevant rebuttal.
It’s a generic argument that can be applied to a whole class of claims. I see smart people falling into this trap all the time. Someone is making a claim by presenting a series of steps that seem quite reasonable. You then are left in a position where you can either: a) accept the overall conclusion, or b) attack the individual reasoning steps. All I’m doing is pointing out a possibility that your reasoning steps can be entirely plausible while your conclusion is completely wrong.
