[nikcub]

This argument has nothing to do with facts, it is just one journalist attempting to defend another, and you can tell by the language used. For eg. in Argument 3 about cruise control and speeds, she says:

But the section before he broke down it does look like he chugged along at a pretty low speed.

"It does look like"? This is a graph, it has data points, its not about "looking like" - these points represent facts. At no point in the facts is there proof of cruise control being set at 55mph.

She is taking a graph with real data and attempting to re-interpret it to fit the NYTimes story. This is an emotional argument, as with 'oh no, this was actually about testing supercharge stations'.