That feels like exactly what the article did. They disclosed that the thing broke and on what time frame, alongside details about the degradation of functionality. As far as say that this isn't the full picture, is it definitely not? If we owe someone the benefit of the doubt if their device breaks while being reviewed do we owe the reader the deficit of the doubt if it doesn't break? What if they just got lucky?
Comments
That feels like exactly what the article did. They disclosed that the thing broke and on what time frame, alongside details about the degradation of functionality. As far as say that this isn't the full picture, is it definitely not? If we owe someone the benefit of the doubt if their device breaks while being reviewed do we owe the reader the deficit of the doubt if it doesn't break? What if they just got lucky?