This drivel is exactly the type of review you come to expect from Medium. His bias is clear from the beginning of the article, and the few actual arguments provided against Stef reasoning are easily disputable. Not to mention, quite a large chunk of the article itself isn't an argument as much as a self-aggrandizing attempt to poison the well.

[The Art of the Argument] provides a division of society into reasonable people, who observe the teachings of The Argument, and dishonest “sophists”. It even provides a pseudo-historical narrative of how The Argument wins out against those who would undermine it. [The author never provides an argument to support this passively dismissive claim.]

Let me begin with a disclaimer: I’m a professional philosophical logician. My PhD research focuses on theories of truth and paradoxes relating to them. I have a BA in mathematics and a MSc in logic[...] Nonetheless, the purpose of Molyneux’s book is to provide the fundamentals of a good argument, which is a subject near and dear to my heart, so I care very much what a popular writer has to say on the matter.

Here is an example of just how weak the arguments of a "professional philosophical logician with a BA in mathematics and a MSc in logic, and whose PhD research focuses on theories of truth and paradoxes relating to them," are:

Incidentally, the idea of a Molyneux-valid premise and argument sounds a lot like a rough definition for a true premise and a sound argument. But it is specifically limited to propositions about empirical data[...]

1. All plumbers can swim.
2. Bob knows how to swim.
3. Therefore Bob is a plumber.

---

1. Kind people are socialists.
2. Bob is a kind person.
3. Therefore Bob is a socialist.
   

The first example is not a Molyneux-valid argument because it is not standardly-valid and its first premise is not Molyneux-valid (i.e. not true), assuming there exists a plumber who can’t swim. The second example is standardly-valid but its first premise is not Molyneux-valid (i.e. not true), assuming there exists a kind person who is not a socialist, therefore the second example is not a Molyneux-valid argument either.

[Arguement here]

Curiously, Molyneux soon goes on to describe the following argument as being “logical” or “logically sound”:

1. All men are immortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is immortal
   

This is a standardly-valid argument which is not standardly-sound. But being Molyneux-sound is the same as being standardly-valid. The meaning of “sound” and “valid” has been entirely reversed from that seen in undergraduate textbooks the world over. Again, with inductive reasoning, Molyneux seems intent on a defective dictionary-style definition: Inductive reasoning attempts to draw general rules from specific instances. This is not exactly inductive reasoning either. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides one example of an inductive argument among many that does not involve a specific-to-general inference: “I saw her kiss him, really kiss him, so I’m sure she’s having an affair.” Molyneux goes on to make a long-winded analogy of how deductive and inductive reasoning can be compared to predator and prey, alpha and beta males, and proactive and reactive behaviour. For brevity’s sake, I won’t provide an account of all of this, other than that the analogies Molyneux makes of arguments are confusing rather than instructive.